Are you enjoying the Seminar? You can help spread the word and grow our community by resharing my LinkedIn post about this week's seminar. The more like-minded investors like us we have join, the richer the discussion will be.
Why does Graham believe that Senior Securities with Speculative Features are typically attractive in form? Do you agree?
Benjamin Graham addresses this directly:
“Such issues must therefore be considered as the most attractive of all in point of form, since they permit the combination of maximum safety with the chance of unlimited appreciation in value. A bond that meets all the requirements of a sound investment and in addition possesses an interesting conversion privilege would undoubtedly constitute a highly desirable purchase. “
My opinion:
This is true, but as with all securities the underlying performance of the company drives the results. A good stock would see the common perform better, a poor one, losses on the bond if it became insolvent. The results are all strongly correlated to the underlying performance.
Question 2:
Graham states that the record of such securities has been unenviable. Why? See if you can do some research about whether that statement has been true in recent times - e.g. the last 20-30 years.
He shows a table of securities and their performance, and in general they were poor with hindsight. The bonds were issued by weaker companies in order to entice reluctant investors attracted by the form, and their weakness gave poor results. The good form of an investment generally does not make up for lack of quality.
In recent times investment has been better than then.
“From 1988 through 2021, the ICE BofA U.S. Convertible Index captured about 80% of the upside and 60% of the downside of the average rolling 12-month returns of the S&P 500, NASDAQ Composite, and Russell 2000 indices.”
This is a nice indicator of their attractive form. The investor gives up a proportion of their profits for a greater preservation of capital in tough times.
Question 3:
What are Graham’s views on the importance of the terms of the speculative features in such securities vs. the prospects of the underlying enterprise? What do you think about this balance?
He thought that the terms had to suit the investors view of the underlying strength of the enterprise. He says “Generally speaking, there should be no middle ground. The investor interested in safety of principal should not abate his requirements in return for a conversion privilege; the speculator should not be attracted to an enterprise of mediocre promise because of the pseudo-security provided by the bond contract.” The terms can be unfavourable and unlikely to lead to a satisfactory profit even if the underlying security is strong, and favourable terms can still lead to poor returns if the underlying securities are weak as happened in his time.
I think that while the terms are the primary driver of the rationale for the investment, the likely performance and strength of the company have to be assessed in the light of those terms.
Question 4:
Find a current security that Graham would classify as a Senior Security with Speculative Features. Would Graham consider it attractive at the current price? Why? Do you? Why?
WisdomTree 4.625% Convertible Senior Notes due 15-Aug-2030
Evaluation as a bond according to Graham using ChatGPT prompt:
Rank Test Ratio Difference from Minimum Certainty Pass/Fail
1 Size – sales ≥ US$0.5 bn ~US$427.7 m (2024) 0.4277 – 0.500 = -0.0723 bn High Fail
2 Normalised pretax profits / interest cost ≥ 4× Pretax (~US$95.4 m) / Interest expense (~US$18.9 m) = ~5.05× 5.05 – 4 = +1.05× High Pass
3 Poorest year profits / interest cost ≥ 3× (Poorest visible year: 2022 pretax ~US$39.95 m) ÷ Interest cost (assume similar ~US$15 m) → ~2.6× 2.6 – 3 = -0.4× Medium Fail
4 Total borrowing / normalised pretax profits < 5× Debt ~US$512 m ÷ Pretax ~US$95.4 m = ~5.37× 5.37 – 5 = +0.37× (worse) High Fail
5 Working capital > total borrowing Current assets minus current liabilities not clearly > debt (data incomplete) Unknown Medium Fail (data gap)
6 Equity value ≥ 75% of total borrowing Equity ~US$~374.9 m as of Sept-24 vs debt US$512 m → ~73%
ChatGPT flubs Question 5 (financial company accounts are different from industrials) but it would also fail. Current assets $318m. Borrowing $633.6m.
By modern standards I think this looks okay, but rating around BB+. 80 basis points premium.
Valuation as an option
Exercisable price $19. Current price $12.56. Various caps make the total upside limited as the company can redeem early if it rises above 130%. Strategy. Wait until it reaches $25 and sell. Gives a 30% capital uplift. In line with Graham’s recommendation.
Underlying performance of the stock is stable to improving.
Would Graham or I think pass it? There are plenty of risks here. I think Graham would fail this on margin of safety grounds. I think on balance it would be worth a small bet. Unfortunately it can only be bought by professional US investors so it will remain theoretical for me.
Good question, so did I. I used ChatGPT to make various lists and picked out some relevant looking samples. What I don’t have is a complete list or any way to compile a proper shortlist. My uk share information site that I pay for does not have any functionality here either. This is usually done by professionals with a Bloomberg terminal or equivalent I think. If Gary or anyone else can shed some light or suggest a solution it would be very helpful.
Question 1 : Yes, they are attractive in “form” because “they combine the appearance of safety with the possibility of speculative gain”. Graham writes “A bond that meets all the requirements of a sound investment and in addition possesses an interesting conversion privilege would undoubtedly constitute a highly desirable purchase.”
Question 2 : Practically, there seems a discrepancy between promise and performance. Graham points out that there are no free lunches, and not be fooled by the packaging. If a bond or preferred share promises both protection and speculative gain, it’s likely too good to be true.
1) features like convertibility or participation often distracted investors from the “rigourours requirements of a sound investmet” based on core fundamentals of the issuer.
2) The unlimited profit possibilities are “illusory” as speculative component of a convertible bond is reflected in the bond’s market price, and that this adjustment becomes more pronounced as the underlying stock rises/falls.
Question 3: Graham is of the view that “The terms of the speculative feature must be judged in the light of the enterprise’s prospects. The two elements are bound together, and neither can be properly evaluated without the other.” It’s clear that the terms of speculative features in senior securities ( like convertibility, participation, or warrants ) must be evaluated in close relation to the underlying enterprise’s prospects, not in isolation. He cautioned investors against being seduced by attractive terms without understanding the fundamental strength of the issuing company.
The order is clear too, “it is more profitable to select the right company than to select the issue with the most desirable terms”
Question 4: We don’t have a lot many of convertible bonds active in India. I will try and look them up in the roster.
On Googling, Tesla convertible bond seems a good example. Noted down to study further
Question 5: One should avoid speculative fixed income securities because they lack the safety and reliability of high-grade bonds. If ones going to speculate, do it with equity—not with compromised debt.
Largely true for today too but the credit ratings have become widely available and securitisation can mitigate risks to an extent.
When investing in speculative bonds, one should adopt the same disciplined approach used in selecting common stocks. This means thoroughly analyzing the issuer’s income statement and balance sheet, and making a careful assessment of both the positive and negative future prospects of the enterprise.
Question 6:
Today, HY are also packaged into exchange-traded funds (ETFs) such as HYG and JNK, offering diversified exposure to the asset class. While individual speculative bonds may carry significant risk, a diversified portfolio of such securities—selected with rigorous analysis—could collectively behave like a sound investment. In today’s market, this principle is reflected in the structure of high-yield bond ETFs and mutual funds, which spread risk across dozens or hundreds of issuers
Graham notes that “nevertheless, we suggest that if the insurance principle of diversification of risk be followed by making a number of such commitments at the same time, the net result should be sufficiently dependable to warrant our calling the group purchase an investment operation. “
Question 8:
AI PROMPT
You are an expert value investor applying Benjamin Graham’s framework from Security Analysis Part III on senior securities with speculative features. Evaluate the following security and its issuer. First, summarize the security’s structure and convertible/participation terms in one paragraph. Second, analyze the issuer’s fundamentals focusing on income statement, balance sheet, cash flow, debt service coverage, and key ratios that affect creditworthiness. Third, assess the realistic value of the speculative feature (conversion, participation, warrants) by calculating current conversion value, intrinsic upside scenarios, and downside risk to principal. Fourth, identify specific risks that could invalidate the speculative feature and estimate probability-weighted outcomes for (a) preservation of principal, (b) conversion upside, and (c) significant loss. Fifth, judge whether the security should be treated as an investment or a speculation under Graham’s standards and state the margin of safety required for an investment decision. Conclude with a recommended position (buy/hold/sell/avoid), a target price or yield, and a concise plan for monitoring triggers to convert, sell, or hedge. Use explicit numerical support, cite assumptions, and show calculations.
Question 1: Speculative senior securities look attractive because they offer additional privileges, like convertibility, participation in gains, or warrants, suggesting extra upside while maintaining seniority. This “attractive form” is often due to marketing and structure rather than actual investment merit.
I believe Today, structured products and hybrids (like convertible bonds) are still marketed as “having the best of both worlds.” However, their real risk can be structural, tied to underlying volatility or opaque terms. The benefits are often overstated, and risks underestimated.
-----------
Question 2: Historically, most speculative senior securities have performed poorly because their supposed “upside” rarely materializes, and their downside risk remains substantial. Weaknesses often manifest during market stress, with poor protection for investors.
From what I have read, in the last 20-30 years many structured products and speculative preferreds underperform broad indices and ordinary bonds, especially in crises (e.g., 2008). While exceptions exist, the “unenviable record” generally persists due to misaligned incentives, complexity, and hidden risks.
-----------
Question 3: Graham emphasises that the terms of speculative features (convertibility, calls, participation, etc.) can be complex and misleading. Ultimately, the safety and value of the security depend more on the underlying company’s financial prospects and stability than on clever features.
While terms remain important, I do believe underlying business fundamentals matter more than contractual features.
-----------
Question 4: The first that come up to mind is is the convertible senior notes issued by Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy, MSTR). These are zero-coupon (0% interest) bonds maturing in 2028–2030, which can be converted into MSTR common stock at a predetermined price.
Graham would likely be very cautious about these securities. On the one hand, the bonds are technically senior to equity and are backed by Strategy’s large Bitcoin holdings. However, the speculative feature—the ability to convert to common shares—derives nearly all its value from highly volatile Bitcoin prices and the resulting movement in Strategy’s stock.
Graham’s framework demands a strong margin of safety based on coverage ratios (assets and cash flow vs. debt), business stability, and reliable earnings. While MSTR’s Bitcoin trove gives strong asset coverage if Bitcoin holds its value, this backing is extremely volatile, and the company lacks traditional business earnings and stable cash flow. The speculative conversion privilege may look appealing, but Graham’s historical view is that such upside is often illusory and the bond’s market price typically reflects this “option” value.
At current prices, most Strategy convertibles are trading well above par because MSTR stock has soared, making conversion profitable. However, if Bitcoin collapses, both the equity and the value of conversion could quickly evaporate, leaving the bondholder exposed with essentially no yield and poor prospects for principal protection. Graham’s classic orientation is defensive—he would dislike the poor credit rating, lack of yield, and dependence on a speculative asset’s value to make the senior security “safe.”
I believe this remains a bet on Bitcoin, nothing more. The risk/reward profile is highly asymmetric: if Bitcoin (and thus MSTR stock) surges, there can be large gains; but if Bitcoin weakens, both the safety and upside features disappear.
-----------
Question 5: Junk bonds occupy a midpoint: their risk/loss profile is worse than high-grade bonds but not as extreme as common stocks. Graham would argue they require stock-like analysis (business prospects, cyclical risk, etc.), not bond-like complacency.
-----------
Question 6: Graham argued that market inefficiencies exist due to lack of disclosure, complexity, and poor investor understanding. Speculative senior securities were particularly inefficient.
I believe Some inefficiencies have diminished thanks to better disclosure, rating agencies, and technology; however, opaque or complex products (structured notes, certain preferreds) still harbor inefficiencies. Credit markets are generally more efficient, but pockets remain—often in smaller size, less-followed issuers, or new structures.
-----------
Question 7: Carvana Co. 10.25% Bond due 2030
Carvana, the used car marketplace, has issued multiple high-yield bonds, including the 10.25% coupon bond maturing May 2030 (ISIN: USU1468GAG92). As of late 2025, these bonds yield about 8.2–10% and are rated speculative (B2 by Moody’s after recent upgrade from deep junk).
Coverage Ratio and Credit:
Carvana's leverage remains extremely high (Net Debt/EBITDA over 6x after debt restructurings). Coverage of interest payments has only recently turned positive, following a near-bankruptcy in 2023–2024.
Credit rating remains well below investment grade (B2), reflecting high default risk and business volatility.
Issuer Fundamentals:
Carvana faces secular risks (auto industry cyclicality, consumer credit risk, aggressive expansion). Profitability and cash flow have only recently stabilized; past years showed negative cash flow.
Valuation & Margin of Safety:
Margin of safety is extremely thin—if Carvana encounters another cash crunch or recession, default risk spikes.
Bond price is volatile and sensitive to quarterly results and capital market access.
Would Graham find it Attractive?
Graham would likely avoid these bonds due to the difficulties Carvana might have to repay them.
Do I?
This bond’s upside is based on Carvana surviving and refinancing debt at maturity; downside is near-total loss in bankruptcy. It’s not a true “investment,” but a speculation—best used as a small, diversified bet within a broader high-yield portfolio. Not for me
-----------
Question 8:
***
Act as a senior value investing analyst operating strictly under the principles of Benjamin Graham and David Dodd's *Security Analysis* (1940 Edition), with a specific focus on **Part III: "Senior Securities with Speculative Features."**
Your task is to provide a rigorous, dispassionate evaluation of a hypothetical security based *only* on the data provided and the analytical methods prescribed in Part III. Avoid modern portfolio theory, market hype, or metrics not explicitly discussed by Graham for this typeill of analysis.
### **Your Analytical Mandate:**
Using the *Security Analysis, Part III* framework, structure your evaluation in the following distinct sections:
**1. The "Two-Part" Analysis of a Speculative Senior Security:**
Begin by explicitly stating Graham's "two-part" test:
a) Its safety and value *as a fixed-income instrument* (its "investment value").
b) The value and attractiveness *of its speculative feature* (the "privilege").
**2. Analysis of the Bond as a Fixed-Income Instrument (Investment Value):**
Evaluate the bond *as if the conversion privilege did not exist*.
* Calculate the **Times Interest Earned** (coverage) using the **7-year average** earnings ($120M) against total fixed charges ($25M).
* Calculate the coverage for the **worst year** ($70M).
* Compare these ratios to Graham's minimum standards for an industrial bond. Conclude if the earnings coverage provides an adequate **margin of safety**.
* **Quantitative Test: Leverage and Asset Protection:**
* Analyze the ratio of **Total Debt ($400M)** to **Book Value of Equity ($500M)**.
* Critically discuss the **subordinated status** of this debenture. How does the $200M in senior debt affect its claim on assets and earnings in a potential liquidation or reorganization?
* **Conclusion on Investment Value:**
* Based on its coverage, leverage, and subordinated status, state whether this bond *independently* qualifies as a sound, investment-grade security by Graham's standards.
* Compare your finding to its "Estimated 'Straight' Investment Value" ($900). Does this estimated price seem justified by your quantitative analysis?
**3. Analysis of the Speculative Feature (The Privilege):**
Now, analyze the "sweetener."
* **Calculate the Current Conversion Value:** Determine the value of the 25 shares of common stock at the current market price ($40/share).
* **Analyze the "Premium for the Privilege":**
* The bond is selling at $1,150.
* Its Conversion Value is (your calculation).
* Its "Straight" Investment Value is $900.
* Identify how much of the $1,150 market price is "investment value" ($900) and how much is "premium for the privilege" (the remaining amount paid *above* both its investment floor and its current conversion value).
**4. Final Synthesis and Conclusion:**
Synthesize your findings from both parts to form a final recommendation.
* **Is the Investor Paying for the Privilege?** Based on your analysis, is the investor paying a significant premium ($1,150 market price vs. $900 investment value) for the conversion option?
* **Graham's Verdict:** According to Graham, a true *investment* in this type of security should be justified *on its bond features alone*, with the privilege acting as a "cost-free" bonus.
* **Recommendation:** Does this bond meet Graham's standard for investment? Or is it a pure speculation where the investor is *sacrificing* safety (by overpaying $250 above its investment value) for a *chance* at future stock appreciation? Conclude if this security is an attractive or unattractive proposition for the "defensive" or "enterprising" investor as defined by Graham.
Graham identifies 3 categories of speculative features attached to senior securities that are attractive:
1. Convertible
2. Participating
3. Subscriptions
They are attractive as they have the safety of a senior security but also have the profit possibilities of an equity. As is the common theme throughout the book this is dependent on the price paid - they only offer value if the bond can be purchased at or near the price of a high quality bond. It's difficult to disagree with most of what Graham says thought the book, this is no exception as seems inherently sensible, the challenge would be finding these securities in the first place.
Question 2:
Graham states 2 reasons for this:
1. The majority of securities offering these features are backed by weaker companies - mainly as compensation for inadequate security. They didn’t qualify as a sound investment.
2. As the speculative features become more valuable this begins to dominate the price of bond, adding the possibility of losses as well as gains.
To understand what has happened over the last few decades I've looked for convertible bond funds. I found a couple of funds (Polar Capital and Lombadier), which have a 10 year track record. I've not been able to get the data series to compare to equities, but they have averaged a return of about 5%, qualitatively there prices don't appear to have less downside that stocks - it's difficult to know if this is because they are following an approach similar to that laid out by Graham, but the index does appear to show the shame general trends.
Question 3:
If the security is being purchased as an investment then term is more important. This is because term can more definitely be dealt with. Grahams reason for ignoring prospects in this scenario seems to invoke a version of the efficient market hypothesis - he assumes the option element of the bond is efficiently priced.
When bought for speculative purposes his reasoning flips and the prospects become more important as the buyer is judging the future prospects of the company.
To take the investment approach I think it would be necessary to find a number 10+(?) of securities from uncorrelated companies.
Question 4:
I’m struggling to find bond data for these exercises. If I identify a bond I can find all the information I need, prospectuses, company accounts etc, but the difficulty is screening for these types of securities. I've also struggled finding price data. I presume this is something that would be easier to do on a Bloomberg terminal or similar, which is out of my budget. If anyone knows of any low cost/free sources that would be great. Having said that I'm aware of Convertible Bonds from Jet2, unfortunately they redeemed earlier this year:
They were issued in 2021 as the airline industry began to recover from the COVID travel restrictions. There are a few features of the these bonds that would not make them suitable as senior bonds with speculative features. 1) after 3 years the company can redeem the shares at par. 2) Given the uncertainty of the industry at this time (and generally) I don't think they would have made a secure investment.
Question 5:
Graham believes they should be invested as if they were stocks and doesn't believe that the cap on maximum return is a limitation.
Question 6:
I think the value of high yield bonds has become more efficiently priced, looking at 10 year returns they are not as high as stocks, although they appear to be more stable. The introduction to Part 3 notes that Chapter 11 bankruptcies were only introduced around the time of writing of the 2nd edition. It also states that Chapter 11 bankruptcies increased the recoverable amounts of High Yield bonds.
Question 7:
I'm struggling to find bonds to answer this question.
Question 8: Create an AI prompt based on the material covered by Graham in Part 3 that would aid you in your investing.
I've just found a way to get a list of convertible bonds for the UK. The FCA (a regulator) holds all documents issued by companies (over the last 10'ish years) and has a searchable database here - https://data.fca.org.uk/#/nsm/nationalstoragemechanism. I just searched for 'convertible' in Document Description and got a list of 1400 documents.
1. The underlying security must be sound and the speculative feature adding value when purchased at a reasonable price - "for the long-pull, a sound participating issue represents the best form of profit-sharing privilege. A senior issue with detachable stock-purchase warrants is likely to show the best results.
2. The difference between promise and performance has not been met because: 1. only a small fraction of the privilege issues have met the rigorous requirements of a sound investment and 2. there is no upper limit to the price that a convertible bond may reach, these is a very real limitation on the amount of profit the holder might realize while still maintaining an investment position. We have been in a 40 year declining interest rate environment which may be changing to higher longer term rates which will have long term effects on bind prices.
3. It is true that it is more profitable to select the right company than to select the issue with the more desirable terms. Then it is important to focus on the terms of the privilege. Determine when the investment approach becomes the speculative approach.
4. Ford Motor Credit, Coupon 2.9%, due 2/10/2029, @93.589, ytm 5.035% ytw 5.035%, Callable in whole or part daily beginning 12/10/28 with 30 days notice. Graham may not see it as an investment, but perhaps as a place to park for short term returns. I may purchase it for the same reasons. If interest rates continue to decline, Ford may be able to refinance it at a lower rate.
5. " Does the smaller risk of loss involved in this low-priced bond, as compared with a common stock, compensate for the smaller possibilities of profit". " The sounder and more fruitful approach to the field of speculative senior securities lies from the direction of common stocks." They could be evaluated either way depending on the terms of the bond.
6. Yes, but maybe not to the same degree. Different factors may be more efficient markets in being able to price the differences and lower historical interest rates. Unusual circumstances may still arise making a security with speculative features an attractive investment. The valuation of the security would have to be thorough and in depth.
7. MPT Operating Partnership 3.5% due 3/15/2031, Make whole call with special redemption provisions. Ytm 9.726%, ytw 9.726% @ 74.34, rates CCC+. The spread should be at least between 77-100 and this bond is lower. This is a fund used for financing the building medical facilities. The medical sector is financially opaque having involvement by both private credit and private equity. There are too many unknowns to be able to fully value with any degree of confidence.
8. What is the best method to use in valuing a convertible bond?
Where does Graham place speculative fixed income securities (high-yield bonds/junk bonds) on the continuum between stocks and high-grade bonds? Would his classification be the same in the current market, and if not how would it differ? How does Graham suggest approaching investing in such securities?
He thought of them as a half way house with some of the attractive features of both: equity possibility of significant capital growth and bond like security of principle. The modern world has a greater ability to quantify the value of both the bond and option part and therefore assesses them more as a sum of two components rather than either/or as Graham did. Hence he would recommend assessing them as either a bond with safety of principle or as a potentially attractive speculative play.
Question 6:
Are the inefficiencies that Graham refers to for all of these security types still the same today. Why/why not? If not, which ones have become more vs. less efficient?
Many of Graham’s cautions have been addressed in the modern world.
More liquidity
Better credit rating techniques
Better understanding of the need for scrutiny of the terms and analysis of the payoffs.
Faster retrieval of assets from failures
Better models of value like Black–Scholes model for pricing the option part of the preferred bond (1974)
Better models of risk sizing (Merton share 1969)
I believe these justify higher valuations and less margin of safety. Whether he would is open to debate, but he struck me as smart flexible and adaptable as an operator with experience in both bull and bear markets so I believe he would have adjusted his thinking in line with conditions and the facts.
Question 7
Find a high-yield security and analyze it using Graham’s approach. Would he consider it attractive? Do you?
Fastly, Inc.’s 7.75% Convertible Senior Notes due June 1, 2028
Feature Description / Details
Issue date / offering The notes were issued on December 5, 2024, via an indenture between Fastly and U.S. Bank Trust Company as trustee.
Aggregate principal / size $150.0 million principal amount of 2028 Notes were issued.
Purpose / funding use Fastly used the proceeds from the issuance to repurchase approximately $157.9 million aggregate principal amount of its existing 0.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2026.
Interest / coupon 7.75% per annum, paid semi-annually in arrears on June 1 and December 1 of each year, starting June 1, 2025.
Maturity date June 1, 2028 (unless earlier converted, redeemed, or repurchased)
Seniority / security These are senior, unsecured obligations of Fastly. There is no specific collateral backing them.
Conversion option Noteholders have the option (under certain conditions) to convert their notes into Fastly’s Class A common stock (or cash, or a mix, at Fastly’s election).
Initial conversion rate / conversion price The initial conversion rate is 50.6586 shares per $1,000 principal amount of notes. That implies a conversion price of ~$19.74 per share ($1,000 ÷ 50.6586)
Conversion premium That conversion price (~$19.74) represented a ~100% premium above the last reported sale price of the common stock on the NYSE as of December 2, 2024.
Anti-dilution adjustments The conversion rate is subject to customary adjustments (e.g. for stock splits, dividends, etc.).
Redemption / optional call The 2028 Notes are not redeemable by Fastly prior to maturity (i.e. no optional call prior to maturity)
Fundamental change repurchase right If a “fundamental change” (as defined in the indenture) occurs, noteholders can require Fastly to repurchase all or part of their notes for cash at 100% of principal plus accrued interest.
Make-whole / adjustment rights In certain corporate transaction events before maturity, Fastly may need to increase the conversion rate for holders who convert in connection with those events.
Events of default The indenture lays out standard default triggers including (i) nonpayment of interest or principal, (ii) failure to convert when due, (iii) failures to give required notices, (iv) covenant violations, (v) bankruptcy/insolvency events, etc.
Sinking fund No sinking fund is provided for the 2028 Notes.
these are high yield and significantly under water with regards to the option to convert. Most of the value therefore lies in the bond rather than the option. There is no formal credit rating. ChatGPT estimates a BB- rating based on losses, but positive EBITDA of $42m covering interest around 4x. Assuming an average 3% default rate for this credit rating gives a 7.75% - 3% - 3.8= 95 basis point premium. That plus any return from bankruptcy (estimated 100bp approx) and a small value from the option, gives some upside for the brave investor. Graham would certainly not buy this one and neither would I unless I thought the company had some chance of significant improvement. Under those circumstances it could be a clever play. You are being paid well to wait, you are at the front of the queue in case of disaster and you might get a bonus if things go well. I don’t know enough about Fastly’s business model to be confident of an assessment but I do know that trying to compete in a fast moving industry without the capital to invest is usually a recipe for eventual failure.
Question 8
Create an AI prompt based on the material covered by Graham in Part 3 that would aid you in your investing.
I found that several prompts rather than one were helpful
I have found that simply posting the full name of the issue will give a very useful and unbiased assessment of the main points to consider on a convertible bond.
For more understanding asking:
“Summarise the terms and logic behind the current pricing of [bond name] “
also provides useful insights into the interplay and payoff’s between yield and option.
Asking to estimate the credit rating is also useful if the company is unrated:
“Make an estimate of Fastly, Inc. credit rating based on its latest accounts”
The results need to be looked at with caution here because this is a complex area, but still useful.
I would be careful in outsourcing judgement to LLMs (as in asking it for a credit rating). I think they are better earlier in the process where you as the final decisionmaker can take their input and build on it to reach your own conclusion. Just my current 2c, we are all still learning as this is so new.
Question 1: Graham says that senior securities with speculative features are attractive in form since they combine the safety of bonds along with the upside characteristics of equities. I agree with him on the form.
However, practicing it is hard because one is rarely able to get securities which have either the safety of a bond as well as the upside characteristics of equity. Most of the securities do not have adequate security and the promise of unlimited profits tend to be illusory.
Interestingly, Buffett has been investing in similar securities from time to time. 2008- Goldman Sachs investment. 2019- Occidental Petroleum investment. However, such investments have been sporadic, and have happened in times when the companies were distressed, and when Buffett could negotiate these large investments with the board of directors.
Question 2: 2 reasons why investing in such securities has been unenviable.
The equity upside is given as enticement to compensate for lack of safety in the underlying enterprise.
While, theoretically profits from the speculative feature of the instrument is unlimited, practically it is not. When the stock is overpriced, the bond should also advance in value (due to the conversion privilege). Holding onto the bond at that price may not be an “investment” decision, and may be a “speculative” decision.
Such instruments have not done particularly well in the last 20-30 years in relation to equities. They suffered in 2008, and also in 2022 when interest rates rose sharply. High rates, and high business risks have caused these instruments to suffer.
Question 3. Graham stresses the importance of underlying enterprise far more than the terms of the speculative features. His view is that, if the enterprise loses strengths, the speculative features alone won’t be enough to rescue the investment.
Question 4. Bank of America 7.25% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock, Series L.
Liquidation value of $1,000. It is convertible to 20 shares of Bank of America at $50/share. Therefore, the speculative component is 80% of the price.
Bank of America is a leading bank with S&P 500 rating of A+. Therefore with at a coupon rate of 7.25%, the earnings yield is ~5.8%.
Graham could consider the bond component to be attractive since its a leading enterprise and a strong bond with a good credit rating.
I don’t consider this to be an attractive investment since I don’t understand large US banks enough.
Question 5. Graham places these between stocks and high-grade bonds. The current market has a large number of such types of instruments, which are different in form but similar in essence, and therefore his classification would be valid.
Graham’s suggestion is simple. These securities should either make investment sense as a bond (a high grade bond) or as a stock. Something that is neither a safe bond investment, nor an attractive stock investment- but somewhere in between- is where Graham says one can get hurt.
Question 6. Inefficiencies still exist- in 2022, Vedanta Resources bonds were available at 40% yield to maturity.
In 2002, Buffett was able to buy Amazon bonds at 30% yields.
In 2022, the stock of IRFC, a sovereign backed lending institution in India, with a mandated dividend payout of 30% of profits traded at a dividend yield of 8.5%, while its bonds yielded 7%.
While information is more available, and there are far more technically capable analysts competing against us in the market, mispricings are governed by fear and emotions. Also, many investment decision makers have little skin in the game- they are concerned with saving their jobs more than protecting their client’s capital. These behavioural aspects are permanent part of the human condition. These lead to mispricings, which are likely to continue.
Question 7. Brookfield Oaktree Series A: “6.625 % Series A Preferred Units - OAK-PA, par value $25.
Currently trading at $21.5. This earns a yield of 7.68%. Debt to equity is around 0.25x. (EBITDA- barebones maintenance capex)/fixed charges is around 5x.
He would consider it reasonably attractive as it is very safe, but its upside opportunities are limited. I’d consider it similarly.
Question 8. I used Notebook LM to create a prompt for ChatGPT which seems to work well to evaluate such securities in a checklist like manner.
CONTEXT
I am studying Part III, "Senior Securities with Speculative Features" (Chapters XXIII–XXVI) from Security Analysis by Benjamin Graham and David L. Dodd. This section focuses on privileged senior issues (convertibles, participating issues, and warrants) and senior securities of questionable safety. I need to practice analyzing these securities using Graham’s methodology.
GOAL 1: Identification and Listing Details
For a hypothetical or historical senior security (Bond or Preferred Stock) that possesses a speculative feature, please provide the following details:
Classification: Clearly state whether it is a Convertible Issue, a Participating Issue, an Issue with Warrants, or a Senior Security of Questionable Safety.
Listing Details & Terms: Provide core descriptive facts, including:
The nominal value (par/face value) and coupon rate or dividend rate.
The price of the senior security (Bond/Preferred Stock) and the current market price of the related Common Stock.
The exact terms of the speculative feature (e.g., conversion ratio, subscription price, or participation limits).
The existence and terms of any callable feature.
GOAL 2: Analysis Based on Graham’s Principles
Analyze the security described above strictly according to Graham’s methods for speculative senior issues. Ensure the analysis covers the following points:
Dual Approach Assessment: Determine which approach the purchase must satisfy:
The strict requirements of a Straight Fixed-Value Investment, or
The objectives of a Straight Common-Stock Speculation.
Evaluation of the Privilege (If Applicable): Analyze the attractiveness of the privilege based on two major factors:
Terms: Evaluate the practical significance of the privilege by calculating the Extent of the Privilege(speculative interest per dollar) and assessing its Closeness to a Realizable Profit.
Enterprise Prospects: Discuss whether the security relies predominantly on the future expansion of profits (which Graham generally discouraged for the investment approach).
Low-Grade/Safety Check (If Applicable): If the security is identified as being of Questionable Safety (i.e., low-grade), analyze it from the Common-stock Approach:
Apply the Rule of Maximum Valuation for Senior Issues by comparing the security’s valuation to what the common stock would be worth if it represented complete ownership of the company (i.e., if it were “commonized”).
Determine if there is a Large Net-Current-Asset Coverage which might justify the commitment, especially if adopting a diversified, quasi-investment approach.
GOAL 3: Highlighting Inherent Risks
Identify and articulate the key inherent disadvantages and risks associated with this specific type of senior security, as identified in Part III of Security Analysis. This must include:
Callable/Suspension Risk: Explain how early redemption or suspension of the privilege limits maximum potential profit and acts as a major drawback, even if the issue is otherwise attractive.
Dilution or Sliding-Scale Risk: Describe how the structure (e.g., changing conversion prices or issue of new shares) may prevent the senior security from appreciating commensurately with the common stock.
Behavior Limitations (Low-Grade Issues): If applicable, explain that purely speculative investors usually prefer common stocks because low-priced senior issues are subject to upper limitations on potential market value and income return, making them a “misfit category.”
For Q1, think about the upside/downside relationship for say a convertible bond as the price of the stock goes up. What happens to the price of the convert? To the downside in holding the convert at the new prices?
1: Graham says senior securities with speculative features look attractive because they seem to give you bondlike safety with a little extra upside. Things like convertibility or profit sharing sound clever. The issue is that the good part usually favors the issuer while the holder still carries most of the risk. I agree with that. They look safe but act like traps when the business weakens.
2: He says their long-term record has been poor because the extra features rarely protect investors when things go bad. History supports that. Preferred shares dropped hard in the 2008 crisis, 2020, and 2022 rate spike. Contingent convertibles, or CoCos, and AT1s are a modern version. They pay a high coupon but can be written down or converted in stress. Credit Suisse AT1 holders were wiped out in 2023, and only this year did a Swiss court partly reverse that decision. Convertibles have done better, but many still end up “busted.” So overall, the record fits what Graham warned about.
3: Graham thought the strength of the business mattered far more than the fine print. If the enterprise is weak, no terms will save you. I agree. The documents matter, but a solid earning base and conservative balance sheet are what really protect the investor.
4: A current example would be a large bank’s AT1 bond. I’ve read a bit about them. They pay high yields but can be converted or written off if capital falls below a trigger. Graham would call that a senior security with speculative features and would likely pass, since the downside is large and the “protection” depends on regulators and market conditions. I’d feel the same way.
5: Graham placed speculative bonds between common stock and high-grade debt. They behave more like stocks when things get rough. His view still applies. High-yield debt trades closely with equity risk. He would tell investors to treat it as equity in disguise, demand big margins of safety, and use diversification instead of picking single names.
6: Inefficiencies have changed. Better disclosure and electronic trading make pricing more efficient most of the time, but the products are also more complex. In calm periods these markets look efficient, but in stress they break down fast. The structure and legal language around hybrids create pockets of confusion that look a lot like what Graham described in the 1930s.
7: One example of a high-yield bond is the Carvana 10¼ percent note due 2030. Using Graham’s checklist, interest coverage is tight, leverage is high, and the business is still turning around. He’d probably say it doesn’t meet the test for a sound bond unless it trades at a very steep discount with visible cash-flow improvement. I’d agree. It’s equity-type risk wrapped in a bond. Maybe worth a look inside a diversified basket, not on its own.
8: For Part 3 I’d try a “meta” prompt that helps generate useful follow-up prompts. Something like:
Meta Prompt:
“Act as an expert on Benjamin Graham and on Security Analysis, Part 3. Generate five prompts a long-term investor could use to analyze senior securities with speculative features such as convertibles, preferreds, or AT1s. At the top, summarize the goal of each prompt, then provide the detailed prompts below. reasoning_effort = high.”
If I actually ran it, the output might look something like this:
1. Goal: Assess downside protection.
Prompt: “Using Graham’s criteria for safety of principal, analyze a hybrid security’s interest coverage, asset backing, and convertibility triggers. Identify which factors make it more like a bond versus more like equity.”
2. Goal: Compare form versus substance.
Prompt: “Summarize how a company’s marketing of a preferred or convertible differs from its real risk exposure. Highlight the gap between promised yield and true safety.”
3. Goal: Evaluate terms versus enterprise strength.
Prompt: “Weigh the relative importance of the security’s terms against the earning power of the issuer. Show scenarios where strong terms fail because the business is weak.”
4. Goal: Detect mispricing in modern hybrids.
Prompt: “Screen current convertible and AT1 markets for issues that may be priced inconsistently with underlying credit risk. Explain where today’s inefficiencies resemble those Graham described.”
5. Goal: Estimate margin of safety for speculative bonds.
Prompt: “Apply Graham’s margin-of-safety framework to a high-yield bond. Compute how much coverage or price discount is required for the security to qualify as a sound investment.”
Regarding Q2, then what do you make of the passage on p. 300 (6th edition), specifically: "But in analyzing privileged issues of the investment grade, the terms of the privilege must receive the greater attention, not because they are more important but because they can be more definitely dealt with."
Your recall of the book is impressive. I’ll admit it’s challenging enough for me to just get through the text and grasp the details. That said, I know application is the backbone of learning.
To your question, I reread that section and offer the following.
Graham is saying that when you analyze an investment grade issue that includes a special privilege, like convertibility, you give more attention to the terms because they are clear and measurable. You can calculate exactly how the privilege works. The company’s future earnings are less certain. He is not saying the terms are more important than the business itself, only that they can be dealt with more definitely. Once the business strength is established, the privilege is the part you can evaluate with real precision.
1. A senior security can be given virtually all the profit possibilities that attach to the common stock of the enterprise. Such issues must therefore be considered most attractive in the point of form. — I do agree with that being the case regarding the forms that he describes. If I were given the option to invest in a security that provided a cumulative secured coupon with an additional “coupon” of purchasing common at a specified price, I’d probably choose that type of issue in most circumstances. However, it seems like with the exception of private issuance (such as Berkshire Hathaway’s Occidental Petroleum warrants) it it doesn’t appear that many of these types of issues are extended to the public. Maybe because capital is less scarce than during Graham’s day, or maybe there is a change of norms on wall street these days compared to then, so such issues are simply out of fashion, or it is also possible that I’ve not looked hard enough to find them, as is so often the case with inefficient portions of the market.
2. Reason 1) there has only been a small fraction of these privileged issues which met the rigorous requirements of a sound investment. (As Munger would have said: “cereal mixed with turds is still turds”). Reason 2) There is an upper bound by which the investment transfigures into a speculative position based upon outlook for the common. — To me this further illustrates the Mark’s sentiment that price paid is instrumental in determining the nature of the risk that is being taken up through purchase.
3. page 300 “As between the two factors, it is undoubtably true that it is more profitable to select the right company, and to select the issue with the most desirable terms. There was certainly no mathematical basis on which the attractiveness of the enterprise may be offset against the terms of the privilege, and a balanced truck between these two entirely disassociated elements of value. But an analyzing privileged issues of the investment grade, the terms of the privilege must receive the greater attention, not because they are more important but because they can be more definitively dealt with. I may seem a comparatively easy manner to determine that one enterprise is more promising than another. But it is by no means so easy to establish that one common stock of a given price is clearly preferable to another stock at its current price.” — Now if I’m reading this correctly he’s saying that there are many means by which we can determine which company may be a better investment, but it is the equivalent of grasping at straws to determine which issues (taken separate from the companies underlying) constituent an investment. Essential, one most always determine which companies are worth investing in, then to determine which of that companies issues offer the best terms.— If I do in fact understand that correctly, then that seems entirely reasonable. It also allows for any number of issues to lead you to study the company (let say the common hits a 52W low) but the due diligence must always be done, then an issue selected. Restated from the world of chess: if you see a good move, look for a better one.
4. —
5. Paraphrasing from page 324, they exist on a spectrum between the two issues, and would be positioned closer to stocks than toward investment grade bonds. Perhaps this is due to his discussion of the stability of the company at large (investment criteria) vs. sacrifice of potential gains. — The modern market correlate I would consider is the act of writing covered calls. The coupon is safe (since you already have it when writing the option) but are you being adequately compensated for selling away the upside? I’m positive that this isn’t what Graham was talking about specifically, but the market is large and there are only certain places that I have any experience to draw from. — The final full paragraph on 324 makes me think that he wants a person to approach these securities not as a negative art, because the main identifying factor here is the upside.
6. In short, I don’t know, but I believe in general that the market has gotten faster since Graham’s day (both in veering off course and correcting from that veering), so the magnitude of inefficiencies are likely just as present as they were historically but without allowing the same breadth of window of opportunity. I say that, but if we consider Thomas Phelps’ statement: “It’s more important to be right, than to be quick.” perhaps I’m wrong… In general though Graham doesn’t speak of investment in the sense of “compounding” as does Phelps, but rather in the sense of “correcting.”
Apologies @gary for the late submission - had a difficult week being unwell. But many thanks for this wonderful opportunity to re-visit SA many years after the Great Recession
Question 1: Why does Graham believe that Senior Securities with Speculative Features are typically attractive in form? Do you agree?
A1:
1. He believes these are typically attractive in form because the seniority allows for safety and the speculative features of the privilege to convert provides a chance of unlimited appreciation
2. I agree. Evidence of this presented on pp [306] “the best results are obtained by holders of senior securities with detachable stock-purchase warrants.” showing that in a stricking manner that “issues with purchase warrants have a tendency to sell at large premiums in relation to the common-stock price”. This combination also appears to be a favorite of Buffet when he invests in distressed assets. Example follows:
a. 10% Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series G (the “Preferred Shares”) and a warrant to purchase 43,478,260 shares of its Voting Common Stock (the “Warrant” and, together with the Preferred Shares, the “Purchased Securities”) Source: Securities Purchase Agreement between Goldman Sach and Berkshire Hathaway, September 29, 2008.
Question 2: Graham states that the record of such securities has been unenviable. Why? See if you can do some research about whether that statement has been true in recent times - e.g. the last 20-30 years.
A2:
1. He states that the record is unenviable because the speculative “feature has most often been offered to compensate for inadequate security” before the crash (1926-1929) with the firms with strong balance sheets issuing stock and the weaker ones issuing privileged senior securities.
2. The statement is probably not true in times of distress as demonstrated in the above Goldman Sachs deal.
Question 3: What are Graham’s views on the importance of the terms of the speculative features in such securities vs. the prospects of the underlying enterprise? What do you think about this balance?
A3:
1. Graham does say it is more profitable to consider the prospects of the underlying enterprise (pp [300])
2. I think if is an investment operation, then the first hurdle to clear is that the enterprise has promising prospects (strong balance sheet with solid and preferably growing owner earnings via a moat) and once that hurdle is crossed and the issue is found to be investment grade, then the terms of the privilege start to matter and the balance shifts. It appears that this is more path dependent than a true balance.
Question 4: Find a current security that Graham would classify as a Senior Security with Speculative Features. Would Graham consider it attractive at the current price? Why? Do you? Why?
A4: N/A
Question 5: Where does Graham place speculative fixed income securities (high-yield bonds/junk bonds) on the continuum between stocks and high-grade bonds? Would his classification be the same in the current market, and if not how would it differ? How does Graham suggest approaching investing in such securities?
A5:
1. On the continuum between stocks and high-grade bonds, Graham appears to place speculative fixed income securities directionally from the angle of stocks. (“Common-stock Approach Preferable” pp [324])
2. The classification appears to be the same in the current market where the high yield issues appear to behave like common stocks with a few emerging exceptions
a. High yield issuance by private equity funded companies is significant so common stock related disclosures may not be readily available
b. Private credit issuance may have further side-effects on the placement of speculative fixed income securities available publicly for investment in the continuum
Question 6: Are the inefficiencies that Graham refers to for all of these security types still the same today. Why/why not? If not, which ones have become more vs. less efficient?
A6:
1. Yes, the inefficiencies are still there but to a lesser extent, for example, see suspension of dividends and bankruptcies of shale oil drillers in the recent past.
2. Why is it still the same? Despite deeper markets, more complex forms of debt are emerging along with new types of fraud leading to surprise defaults – these security types are typically not sound investments on an individual basis
3. Why is it still not the same? The private equity and speculative fixed income markets have become deeper over time and it is possible as an investment operation on a aggregate basis to compensate for the lack of investment grade creditworthiness
4. New forms of speculative financing not tested by a large crisis may be inefficient
Question 7: Find a high-yield security and analyze it using Graham’s approach. Would he consider it attractive? Do you?
A7: N/A
Question 8: Create an AI prompt based on the material covered by Graham in Part 3 that would aid you in your investing.
Question 1: Why does Graham believe that Senior Securities with Speculative Features are typically attractive in form? Do you agree?
Graham argues that senior securities with speculative features are attractive in form because they appear to offer the best of both worlds: the downside protection of a bond with the upside of equity. In theory, that mix is appealing, and I can understand the draw even though I haven’t seriously considered convertibles in my own investing.
However, Graham’s underlying warning is that this balance is often illusory. When the equity performs well, the bond protection becomes irrelevant; when it performs poorly, the conversion privilege is worthless. My takeaway is similar—while the structure sounds appealing on paper, it raises the question of why an investor wouldn’t simply choose between owning the stock or the bond outright.
That said, convertibles can play a useful role in reducing return volatility across market cycles (Oaktree, The Case for Convertible Bonds, 2020). They’re interesting to consider at the portfolio level, but I’d be cautious about how and why I’d use them—echoing Graham’s distinction between intelligent and unintelligent speculation. Perhaps a diversified basket or ETF of convertibles could make sense as part of a broader allocation, rather than relying on a single convertible to hedge downside on an individual stock where my conviction may be lower. The presence of convertible financing may make me question the company's stability. I may just need to further explore these types of issues to understand any benefits better.
Question 2: Graham states that the record of such securities has been unenviable. Why? See if you can do some research about whether that statement has been true in recent times - e.g. the last 20-30 years.
While convertibles seem attractive—offering bond-like protection with equity upside—Graham warned there’s “no free lunch.” Few issues meet true investment standards; the conversion feature often compensates for weaker credit quality. Once “in the money,” convertibles trade more like equity, losing their fixed-income protection.
This remains true today. Convertibles are still a cheaper source of capital, typically used by weaker issuers (Oaktree, The Case for Convertible Bonds, 2020). Issuance often spikes during volatile or speculative periods—such as 2003, 2007, and 2020—with 2003 and 2007 preceding major market pullbacks. Dealogic reports another peak issuance year in 2025 at $81B, the highest in five years (Reuters). Performance continues to track volatility: from 2006–2015, convertibles returned +0.85% versus a 60/40 portfolio amid 20 volatility; from 2015–2018, they fell –3.29% as volatility declined to 14 (Morgan Stanley, 2019 Market Outlook: It’s All Relative).
Question 3: What are Graham’s views on the importance of the terms of the speculative features in such securities vs. the prospects of the underlying enterprise? What do you think about this balance?
Graham draws a subtle distinction between the terms of the speculative feature and the prospects of the underlying enterprise. In theory, choosing the right company is more profitable—but in practice, investors can rarely do so with confidence. From an investment perspective, Graham advises focusing on the terms, since they are objective and quantifiable (e.g., a $30 stock convertible at $33 has a much lower hurdle than one at $50). He cautions that market prices generally already reflect differences in company quality, and relying on forecasts of profit expansion drifts into speculation. By contrast, under a speculative approach, the enterprise’s prospects matter more, since the investor is deliberately betting on future growth.
I think Graham strikes a realistic balance here: investors should recognize their limits in forecasting and anchor on definable terms, while speculators can lean into business prospects—but should do so consciously. I also recall Graham’s distinction between intelligent and unintelligent speculation—the former being done knowingly and within one’s competence, the latter being blind optimism. His framework reminds investors to understand which game they’re playing and why.
Question 4: Find a current security that Graham would classify as a Senior Security with Speculative Features. Would Graham consider it attractive at the current price? Why? Do you? Why?
Security: STRK, Strategy Inc 8.00% Series A Perpetual Preferred
Key Features: 8% cumulative dividend, conversion ratio 0.1 MSTR per STRK
Graham would likely appreciate STRK’s cumulative dividend. However, the conversion option is deeply out of the money, making the security highly speculative. The 8% yield is attractive, but MicroStrategy’s volatile earnings the last 5 years and substantial Bitcoin holdings introduce significant risk. I agree with Graham — despite the dividend, I would avoid this security due to its speculative nature and uncertain coverage.
Question 5: Where does Graham place speculative fixed income securities (high-yield bonds/junk bonds) on the continuum between stocks and high-grade bonds? Would his classification be the same in the current market, and if not how would it differ? How does Graham suggest approaching investing in such securities?
Graham places speculative fixed-income securities—such as high-yield bonds and preferred stocks—closer to equities than to high-grade bonds on the investment spectrum. Because their safety of principal depends heavily on the issuer’s earnings power, he recommends analyzing them much like common stocks, with emphasis on the company’s financial condition, industry prospects, and potential for recovery or growth.
Graham notes that such securities can occasionally offer unique advantages: they may trade at deeper discounts to intrinsic value than common stocks and still provide some contractual return through coupons or preferred dividends, offering a partial buffer against downside.
In the current market, however, conditions differ. High-yield spreads are near historic lows (~300 bps vs. a 500 bps average), signaling tight valuations and limited risk premium—in other words, investors are being paid very little for assuming credit risk. Equities likewise trade at elevated valuations, suggesting both asset classes sit at the high end of the mean-reversion cycle.
While Graham would still classify speculative bonds as equity-like, he would likely find today’s environment unattractive. He’d probably advise waiting for wider spreads or distressed pricing that provides a greater margin of safety before investing in these securities.
Question 6: Are the inefficiencies that Graham refers to for all of these security types still the same today. Why/why not? If not, which ones have become more vs. less efficient?
I believe this is referring to issues covered by net current assets. Yes it seems these have become harder to come by. Information spreads faster these days, but some other factors could include QE/high liquidity/capital inflows raising valuations and asset light tech companies mean less current assets. I saw a podcast recently where Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) was pitched as a net-net, so opportunities still exist on the margin, especially in undercovered segments like small caps.
Question 7: Find a high-yield security and analyze it using Graham’s approach. Would he consider it attractive? Do you?
Kohl’s 5.125% Notes due May 2031 (Price ≈78)
This bond is a high-yield, speculative security. Kohl’s sales have declined ~16% from 2022–2025, and the department store segment faces structural headwinds from e-commerce and off-price competitors. Management turnover and an incomplete turnaround plan add execution risk, and competitive advantages are modest. Graham would likely not find this attractive given this outlook and I would agree.
Question 8: Create an AI prompt based on the material covered by Graham in Part 3 that would aid you in your investing.
AI Prompt — Graham Analysis of Speculative Senior Securities (High-Yield Bonds)
"Analyze the following high-yield or speculative bond as Benjamin Graham would. Fill in details for each section:
Bond Details:
Issuer: ______
Industry: ______
Bond Coupon / Maturity / Price / Yield: ______
Seniority / Collateral / Covenants: ______
1. Financial Health & Coverage:
Earnings stability: ______
Cash flow vs interest coverage: ______
Leverage (Debt/EBITDA): _____
Liquidity: ______
2. Margin of Safety:
Compare current price to intrinsic value or liquidation value: ______
Discount or premium to fair value: ______
3. Qualitative Risks:
Industry trends / structural headwinds: ______
Management quality & execution risk: ______
Competitive pressures: ______
4. Upside / Downside Potential:
Likely price recovery or default risk: ______
Scenarios under which the bond could outperform/underperform: ______
5. Graham Assessment:
Speculative or investment-grade: ______
Would Graham find it attractive? Why / why not: ______
6. Personal Judgment:
Risk/reward summary: ______
Would you consider this security for a speculative allocation? ______
"Use financial ratios, industry context, and recent market trends to support your answers. Provide concise reasoning for each section."
I thought this quote in the intro to part 3 (6th ed.) was kind of interesting given AI trends:
“As long as investors remain human, and thus subject to greed, fear, pressure, doubt, and the entire range of human emotions, there will be money to be made by those who steel themselves to overcome emotion.” Pg 288 J. Ezra Merkin
Form wise they offer the best of both worlds. Defensive safe bond-like qualities with potential upside like common stock offers.
Question 2:
In practice they seem to underperform. Only companies which are struggling would offer investors such a security.
A broad look: According to a society-of-actuaries study, over a 25-year span the convertible bond index delivered about 11.8% annualized compared to ~13.7% for the S&P 500
This is surprising to me as I would have expected much more outperformance of S&P 500 with the bull run we have been on recently. Still underperforms equities, but may be worth the tradeoff for security. During downfalls, convertible bonds would fall less than equities.
Question 3:
Need to first look at the terms of the security to understand the upside potential before looking at the prospects of the underlying enterprise.
I disagree I would use the quality of the company and management to screen which companies I would even look at the convertible bonds of. After this screening I would start with the features of each issue.
Question 4:
Boeing 6.00% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred (NYSE: BA.PRA)
Form: depositary shares, each = 1/20th of a share of Boeing’s 6.00% mandatory convertible preferred. Dividends are 6% on the $50 liquidation preference of each depositary share, paid quarterly if declared. It must convert to common stock in Oct 2027.
Speculative feature: the conversion is price-dependent. Each depositary share will settle into between ~0.2914 and 0.3497 BA common shares; the breakpoints correspond to ~$171.5854 (cap) and $142.9797 (floor) on BA’s stock. (Between those prices the settlement rate is $50 ÷ “applicable market value”.)
Why “senior security with speculative features”: it sits senior to common (preferred), but ultimate economics hinge on equity price at conversion — classic Graham category. Boeing described the structure and 6% terms when it priced the deal in Oct-2024.
BA.PRA ≈ $69.40 (recent close). At $3.00/yr in dividends per unit, the current yield ≈ 4.3%.
BA common ≈ $217–218 today. At that level, the preferred would convert at the minimum share rate (~0.2914), implying a conversion value of ~$63.5 (0.2914×$217.8). Add ≈ $6 of remaining dividends to Oct-2027, and you land near $69.5—basically parity with today’s BA.PRA price.
Graham would not like this issue. His hierarchy was terms first, prospects second. Here, the terms cap your upside (min share rate above ~$171.6) and offer limited downside (you still convert if BA falls). With BA.PRA trading roughly at its parity value versus the common (given BA ≈ $218), there’s no evident “margin of safety” in the contract or the price.
I equally do not like this issue. The mandatory conversion with a sliding range of exchanges mean downside and limited upside.
Question 5:
In between high-grade bonds and stocks. He views high-yield bonds/junk bonds as stock like and possibly equally as speculative.
Modern credit markets have evolved—junk bonds are now an institutional asset class with diversified ETFs, ratings transparency, and liquidity. With more information available to all investors, risks are better understood and I believe it is easier for an investor to operate in this asset class.
Question 6:
No markets have become way more efficient. Graham even noticed at the end of his life it was way harder to find mispricing. There is also more access to retail investors leading to momentum mispricing based on sentiment.
Question 7:
Security: Senior unsecured notes, due May 1, 2029, paying 5.125% semi-annually. Notes are unsecured but guaranteed by Carnival plc and certain subs that also guarantee the company’s first-lien debt; marketed with IG-style covenants.
Where it sits in the stack: Behind sizable secured borrowings raised during/after 2020 (e.g., second-priority secured notes referenced in loan docs). In distress, unsecured recoveries would be after those secured claims.
Current pricing/yield: Quoted near 101–102, implying ~4.8–5.1% YTM as of late September/October 2025.
Operating momentum: Record profitability and revenue; FY-2025 guidance raised again. Company flagged record net income and stronger net yields.
Leverage trajectory: Management is pushing net debt / adj. EBITDA toward <3×; S&P revised outlook to Positive and expects about 3.5× by FY-2025 year-end. Moody’s also upgraded (Ba3).
Refinancing progress: Active liability management and new 2029 unsecured issuance at 5.125% help term out debt.
Graham would not find this attractive. Only slightly more yield than the 3.6 10 year treasuries. There is not enough margin of safety to justify the increased risk of this company. I would echo this sentiment. My sentiment is more towards picking winners than discarding losers, so I would steer away from individual issues in high yield bonds and go with a diversified ETF.
Question 8:
You are Benjamin Graham, analyzing a bond or preferred stock as described in Security Analysis, Part III.
Your goal is to determine whether this security qualifies as a true investment or a speculative issue, based strictly on quantitative safety, qualitative soundness, and margin of safety.
Analyze the following inputs about the issuer and security:
Type of security (bond, preferred stock, convertible, etc.)
Coupon/dividend rate and maturity
Credit rating (if available)
Earnings and interest coverage ratios
Balance sheet data (assets, debt, equity, cash)
Industry stability and competitive position
Recent operating trends and management quality
Then answer, step-by-step:
Safety of Principal: Is there sufficient assurance of payment? Evaluate interest coverage, leverage, and tangible asset protection.
Earning Stability: Have earnings shown consistent coverage of fixed charges through a full business cycle?
Margin of Safety: Quantify how much earnings or assets exceed the minimum needed to support the debt or preferred dividends.
Qualitative Soundness: Assess the nature of the business, management integrity, and cyclicality.
Classification: Does it meet Graham’s test of an investment (safe principal and satisfactory return) or is it speculative?
Valuation Judgment: Given current market price and yield, is the investor being compensated for risk?
Conclude with:
Investment-grade (meets Graham’s standard)
Speculative but possibly attractive if cheap enough
Speculative without sufficient margin of safety
Summarize the reasoning clearly in both quantitative (numbers) and qualitative (business character) terms.
Privileged securities promises bond-like protections while also giving the chance to participate in the potential upside of common stock. It definitely sounds attractive, like a way to have your cake and eat it too. That rarely works out though, so I agree that although 'form' looks good, but further investigation would be need to ensure the foundation is good.
Q2
The 'equity kicker' is often thrown in to compensate for a lack of real safety. Graham noted that companies raising funding in equity markets are usually on stronger footing financially than those issuing privileged securities. Buyers of these securities are betting on weaker foundations and therefor have less downside protection. He also noted that the promised upside is difficult to capture without becoming a speculator. Timing the sale or conversion becomes critical because the bond's prices is tied to the volatile swings of the common stock. Like a lottery ticket, the potential reward is high, but the odds of winning are very low: unenviable. A brief search indicates that Graham's view still holds today. In bull markets, privileged securities have tracked equities, but they have failed to offer protection during downturns.
Q3
If the terms of a speculative are weak, overly complicated or so confusing that one cannot clearly measure of safety, it's unattractive even if the company's financials are sound. If the terms are clear but the business has weak earning power, no amount of special features will fix that problem. If the terms are clear and fair and the business is strong, the security is potentially an investment option. I agree that a strong financial foundation is a primary factor when evaluating any security, so the balance he promotes seems reasonable.
Q4
"Bank of America Corp. 7.25% Non-Cum. Perp. Conv. Pfd. Series L" (Price: ~$1,252)
Earnings coverage appears more than sufficient, but protection is limited as preferred stock is subordinate. The rate is attractive but the income is not guaranteed (noncumulative and discretionary). Conversion into common stock adds upside but moving into common stock exposes one to the potential loss of principal. There is also some downside due to the automatic conversion trigger possibility. Overall, margin of safety seems thin here.
Would Graham find this attractive at the current price? I lack the skills and knowledge to evaluate the intrinsic value of this issue, but I think it is currently overvalued. The terms and profit-sharing features are not amazing and so don't add to the margin of safety. That said, given BAC's scale, earnings power, history of actually paying the dividend, this issue might be attractive to him at the right price.
Q5
He places speculative fixed-income securities closer to stocks than to high-grade bonds, which is probably still true in current markets. It is interesting that he begins Part 3 by discussing a security whose 'form' is attractive but often unproductive, and closes by discussing the possible merits of one with an unattractive 'form'. It would seem that no security that met his requirements of an investment was automatically off limits. He didn't make rules based on the 'label' of the asset, but by whether it met his standard of an investment. If, after 'thorough analysis', Graham found a high-yield or junk bond that was priced at a deep enough discount to intrinsic value and backed by a business with enough earning power to protect principle and deliver an attractive return--in other words, he saw an actual investment--he went for it.
Q6
I do not have enough experience or knowledge to answer this question fully, but I believe the immense amount of information, ease of access, computing power and now the rise of AI can reduce mispricing. At the same time, humans being humans, fear and greed still exist and opportunities arise when the market overreacts. Perhaps some securities are more efficiently priced today, but inefficiencies driven by behavior will have a harder time disappearing.
Q7
"Energy Transfer LP, 9.25% Series I Preferred Units"
ET's earnings power is very strong, so payments are viable. Asset protection is minimal, since the preferred ranks behind a large senior debt load. The terms offer no profit-sharing features, but cumulative dividends add a small amount of protection. Callability leaves control with the issuer. I don't think this would be attractive to Graham, since it offers little real protection for the holder. The terms are issuer‑friendly, with minimal safeguards and very limited upside. Its only real strength is that ET’s strong earnings make the dividend payments viable in good times. I've run out of time to dig in more, but I'm curious if the current discount on this makes this more of an option of if there is a good reason for the discount.
Q8
"Analyze INPUT_BOND_HERE using Graham's framework in Part 3 of Security Analysis:
1. Provide earnings coverage ratio, stress test coverage, and asset protection metrics.
2. Describe the terms of the arrangement focusing on extent, closeness, and duration of any privileges. Do they actually add protection?
3. Identify any profit-sharing features and contractual realism. From a business health lens, are the features viable or speculative?
4. Deliver a final judgment on protection standards, terms, profit-sharing features, and overall classification as investment or speculation.
5. Given the current price and estimated intrinsic value, qualitatively assess how protective and profit-sharing features affect the margin of safety. Do they add or diminish it?
Use simple, clear language and provide concise, structured responses."
Agree, its a lot more nuanced that what we have learnt so far. Nice try Varun ! I too would thank Gary for providing this opportunity and have earmarked these chapters for a detailed read once the course completes.
Are you enjoying the Seminar? You can help spread the word and grow our community by resharing my LinkedIn post about this week's seminar. The more like-minded investors like us we have join, the richer the discussion will be.
The post is here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gary-mishuris_education-investing-learning-activity-7384930846383767552-wHHq
Thank you to everyone who reposted the LinkedIn post about the seminar, it helped grow the community.
Question 1:
Why does Graham believe that Senior Securities with Speculative Features are typically attractive in form? Do you agree?
Benjamin Graham addresses this directly:
“Such issues must therefore be considered as the most attractive of all in point of form, since they permit the combination of maximum safety with the chance of unlimited appreciation in value. A bond that meets all the requirements of a sound investment and in addition possesses an interesting conversion privilege would undoubtedly constitute a highly desirable purchase. “
My opinion:
This is true, but as with all securities the underlying performance of the company drives the results. A good stock would see the common perform better, a poor one, losses on the bond if it became insolvent. The results are all strongly correlated to the underlying performance.
Question 2:
Graham states that the record of such securities has been unenviable. Why? See if you can do some research about whether that statement has been true in recent times - e.g. the last 20-30 years.
He shows a table of securities and their performance, and in general they were poor with hindsight. The bonds were issued by weaker companies in order to entice reluctant investors attracted by the form, and their weakness gave poor results. The good form of an investment generally does not make up for lack of quality.
In recent times investment has been better than then.
“From 1988 through 2021, the ICE BofA U.S. Convertible Index captured about 80% of the upside and 60% of the downside of the average rolling 12-month returns of the S&P 500, NASDAQ Composite, and Russell 2000 indices.”
This is a nice indicator of their attractive form. The investor gives up a proportion of their profits for a greater preservation of capital in tough times.
Question 3:
What are Graham’s views on the importance of the terms of the speculative features in such securities vs. the prospects of the underlying enterprise? What do you think about this balance?
He thought that the terms had to suit the investors view of the underlying strength of the enterprise. He says “Generally speaking, there should be no middle ground. The investor interested in safety of principal should not abate his requirements in return for a conversion privilege; the speculator should not be attracted to an enterprise of mediocre promise because of the pseudo-security provided by the bond contract.” The terms can be unfavourable and unlikely to lead to a satisfactory profit even if the underlying security is strong, and favourable terms can still lead to poor returns if the underlying securities are weak as happened in his time.
I think that while the terms are the primary driver of the rationale for the investment, the likely performance and strength of the company have to be assessed in the light of those terms.
Question 4:
Find a current security that Graham would classify as a Senior Security with Speculative Features. Would Graham consider it attractive at the current price? Why? Do you? Why?
WisdomTree 4.625% Convertible Senior Notes due 15-Aug-2030
Evaluation as a bond according to Graham using ChatGPT prompt:
Rank Test Ratio Difference from Minimum Certainty Pass/Fail
1 Size – sales ≥ US$0.5 bn ~US$427.7 m (2024) 0.4277 – 0.500 = -0.0723 bn High Fail
2 Normalised pretax profits / interest cost ≥ 4× Pretax (~US$95.4 m) / Interest expense (~US$18.9 m) = ~5.05× 5.05 – 4 = +1.05× High Pass
3 Poorest year profits / interest cost ≥ 3× (Poorest visible year: 2022 pretax ~US$39.95 m) ÷ Interest cost (assume similar ~US$15 m) → ~2.6× 2.6 – 3 = -0.4× Medium Fail
4 Total borrowing / normalised pretax profits < 5× Debt ~US$512 m ÷ Pretax ~US$95.4 m = ~5.37× 5.37 – 5 = +0.37× (worse) High Fail
5 Working capital > total borrowing Current assets minus current liabilities not clearly > debt (data incomplete) Unknown Medium Fail (data gap)
6 Equity value ≥ 75% of total borrowing Equity ~US$~374.9 m as of Sept-24 vs debt US$512 m → ~73%
ChatGPT flubs Question 5 (financial company accounts are different from industrials) but it would also fail. Current assets $318m. Borrowing $633.6m.
By modern standards I think this looks okay, but rating around BB+. 80 basis points premium.
Valuation as an option
Exercisable price $19. Current price $12.56. Various caps make the total upside limited as the company can redeem early if it rises above 130%. Strategy. Wait until it reaches $25 and sell. Gives a 30% capital uplift. In line with Graham’s recommendation.
Underlying performance of the stock is stable to improving.
Would Graham or I think pass it? There are plenty of risks here. I think Graham would fail this on margin of safety grounds. I think on balance it would be worth a small bet. Unfortunately it can only be bought by professional US investors so it will remain theoretical for me.
Hi James, how did you screen to find your bonds? I struggled with that aspect.
Good question, so did I. I used ChatGPT to make various lists and picked out some relevant looking samples. What I don’t have is a complete list or any way to compile a proper shortlist. My uk share information site that I pay for does not have any functionality here either. This is usually done by professionals with a Bloomberg terminal or equivalent I think. If Gary or anyone else can shed some light or suggest a solution it would be very helpful.
Bloomberg has the SRCH functionality to search for bonds and EQS to search for stocks
Comment pasted in two sections as it was too large for one comment. Big assignment this week!
Question 1 : Yes, they are attractive in “form” because “they combine the appearance of safety with the possibility of speculative gain”. Graham writes “A bond that meets all the requirements of a sound investment and in addition possesses an interesting conversion privilege would undoubtedly constitute a highly desirable purchase.”
Question 2 : Practically, there seems a discrepancy between promise and performance. Graham points out that there are no free lunches, and not be fooled by the packaging. If a bond or preferred share promises both protection and speculative gain, it’s likely too good to be true.
1) features like convertibility or participation often distracted investors from the “rigourours requirements of a sound investmet” based on core fundamentals of the issuer.
2) The unlimited profit possibilities are “illusory” as speculative component of a convertible bond is reflected in the bond’s market price, and that this adjustment becomes more pronounced as the underlying stock rises/falls.
Question 3: Graham is of the view that “The terms of the speculative feature must be judged in the light of the enterprise’s prospects. The two elements are bound together, and neither can be properly evaluated without the other.” It’s clear that the terms of speculative features in senior securities ( like convertibility, participation, or warrants ) must be evaluated in close relation to the underlying enterprise’s prospects, not in isolation. He cautioned investors against being seduced by attractive terms without understanding the fundamental strength of the issuing company.
The order is clear too, “it is more profitable to select the right company than to select the issue with the most desirable terms”
Question 4: We don’t have a lot many of convertible bonds active in India. I will try and look them up in the roster.
On Googling, Tesla convertible bond seems a good example. Noted down to study further
Question 5: One should avoid speculative fixed income securities because they lack the safety and reliability of high-grade bonds. If ones going to speculate, do it with equity—not with compromised debt.
Largely true for today too but the credit ratings have become widely available and securitisation can mitigate risks to an extent.
When investing in speculative bonds, one should adopt the same disciplined approach used in selecting common stocks. This means thoroughly analyzing the issuer’s income statement and balance sheet, and making a careful assessment of both the positive and negative future prospects of the enterprise.
Question 6:
Today, HY are also packaged into exchange-traded funds (ETFs) such as HYG and JNK, offering diversified exposure to the asset class. While individual speculative bonds may carry significant risk, a diversified portfolio of such securities—selected with rigorous analysis—could collectively behave like a sound investment. In today’s market, this principle is reflected in the structure of high-yield bond ETFs and mutual funds, which spread risk across dozens or hundreds of issuers
Graham notes that “nevertheless, we suggest that if the insurance principle of diversification of risk be followed by making a number of such commitments at the same time, the net result should be sufficiently dependable to warrant our calling the group purchase an investment operation. “
Question 8:
AI PROMPT
You are an expert value investor applying Benjamin Graham’s framework from Security Analysis Part III on senior securities with speculative features. Evaluate the following security and its issuer. First, summarize the security’s structure and convertible/participation terms in one paragraph. Second, analyze the issuer’s fundamentals focusing on income statement, balance sheet, cash flow, debt service coverage, and key ratios that affect creditworthiness. Third, assess the realistic value of the speculative feature (conversion, participation, warrants) by calculating current conversion value, intrinsic upside scenarios, and downside risk to principal. Fourth, identify specific risks that could invalidate the speculative feature and estimate probability-weighted outcomes for (a) preservation of principal, (b) conversion upside, and (c) significant loss. Fifth, judge whether the security should be treated as an investment or a speculation under Graham’s standards and state the margin of safety required for an investment decision. Conclude with a recommended position (buy/hold/sell/avoid), a target price or yield, and a concise plan for monitoring triggers to convert, sell, or hedge. Use explicit numerical support, cite assumptions, and show calculations.
On Q5, does Graham tell us to avoid high-yield debt or to set certain standards for considering such securities?
-----------
Question 1: Speculative senior securities look attractive because they offer additional privileges, like convertibility, participation in gains, or warrants, suggesting extra upside while maintaining seniority. This “attractive form” is often due to marketing and structure rather than actual investment merit.
I believe Today, structured products and hybrids (like convertible bonds) are still marketed as “having the best of both worlds.” However, their real risk can be structural, tied to underlying volatility or opaque terms. The benefits are often overstated, and risks underestimated.
-----------
Question 2: Historically, most speculative senior securities have performed poorly because their supposed “upside” rarely materializes, and their downside risk remains substantial. Weaknesses often manifest during market stress, with poor protection for investors.
From what I have read, in the last 20-30 years many structured products and speculative preferreds underperform broad indices and ordinary bonds, especially in crises (e.g., 2008). While exceptions exist, the “unenviable record” generally persists due to misaligned incentives, complexity, and hidden risks.
-----------
Question 3: Graham emphasises that the terms of speculative features (convertibility, calls, participation, etc.) can be complex and misleading. Ultimately, the safety and value of the security depend more on the underlying company’s financial prospects and stability than on clever features.
While terms remain important, I do believe underlying business fundamentals matter more than contractual features.
-----------
Question 4: The first that come up to mind is is the convertible senior notes issued by Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy, MSTR). These are zero-coupon (0% interest) bonds maturing in 2028–2030, which can be converted into MSTR common stock at a predetermined price.
Graham would likely be very cautious about these securities. On the one hand, the bonds are technically senior to equity and are backed by Strategy’s large Bitcoin holdings. However, the speculative feature—the ability to convert to common shares—derives nearly all its value from highly volatile Bitcoin prices and the resulting movement in Strategy’s stock.
Graham’s framework demands a strong margin of safety based on coverage ratios (assets and cash flow vs. debt), business stability, and reliable earnings. While MSTR’s Bitcoin trove gives strong asset coverage if Bitcoin holds its value, this backing is extremely volatile, and the company lacks traditional business earnings and stable cash flow. The speculative conversion privilege may look appealing, but Graham’s historical view is that such upside is often illusory and the bond’s market price typically reflects this “option” value.
At current prices, most Strategy convertibles are trading well above par because MSTR stock has soared, making conversion profitable. However, if Bitcoin collapses, both the equity and the value of conversion could quickly evaporate, leaving the bondholder exposed with essentially no yield and poor prospects for principal protection. Graham’s classic orientation is defensive—he would dislike the poor credit rating, lack of yield, and dependence on a speculative asset’s value to make the senior security “safe.”
I believe this remains a bet on Bitcoin, nothing more. The risk/reward profile is highly asymmetric: if Bitcoin (and thus MSTR stock) surges, there can be large gains; but if Bitcoin weakens, both the safety and upside features disappear.
-----------
Question 5: Junk bonds occupy a midpoint: their risk/loss profile is worse than high-grade bonds but not as extreme as common stocks. Graham would argue they require stock-like analysis (business prospects, cyclical risk, etc.), not bond-like complacency.
-----------
Question 6: Graham argued that market inefficiencies exist due to lack of disclosure, complexity, and poor investor understanding. Speculative senior securities were particularly inefficient.
I believe Some inefficiencies have diminished thanks to better disclosure, rating agencies, and technology; however, opaque or complex products (structured notes, certain preferreds) still harbor inefficiencies. Credit markets are generally more efficient, but pockets remain—often in smaller size, less-followed issuers, or new structures.
-----------
Question 7: Carvana Co. 10.25% Bond due 2030
Carvana, the used car marketplace, has issued multiple high-yield bonds, including the 10.25% coupon bond maturing May 2030 (ISIN: USU1468GAG92). As of late 2025, these bonds yield about 8.2–10% and are rated speculative (B2 by Moody’s after recent upgrade from deep junk).
Coverage Ratio and Credit:
Carvana's leverage remains extremely high (Net Debt/EBITDA over 6x after debt restructurings). Coverage of interest payments has only recently turned positive, following a near-bankruptcy in 2023–2024.
Credit rating remains well below investment grade (B2), reflecting high default risk and business volatility.
Issuer Fundamentals:
Carvana faces secular risks (auto industry cyclicality, consumer credit risk, aggressive expansion). Profitability and cash flow have only recently stabilized; past years showed negative cash flow.
Valuation & Margin of Safety:
Margin of safety is extremely thin—if Carvana encounters another cash crunch or recession, default risk spikes.
Bond price is volatile and sensitive to quarterly results and capital market access.
Would Graham find it Attractive?
Graham would likely avoid these bonds due to the difficulties Carvana might have to repay them.
Do I?
This bond’s upside is based on Carvana surviving and refinancing debt at maturity; downside is near-total loss in bankruptcy. It’s not a true “investment,” but a speculation—best used as a small, diversified bet within a broader high-yield portfolio. Not for me
-----------
Question 8:
***
Act as a senior value investing analyst operating strictly under the principles of Benjamin Graham and David Dodd's *Security Analysis* (1940 Edition), with a specific focus on **Part III: "Senior Securities with Speculative Features."**
Your task is to provide a rigorous, dispassionate evaluation of a hypothetical security based *only* on the data provided and the analytical methods prescribed in Part III. Avoid modern portfolio theory, market hype, or metrics not explicitly discussed by Graham for this typeill of analysis.
### **Your Analytical Mandate:**
Using the *Security Analysis, Part III* framework, structure your evaluation in the following distinct sections:
**1. The "Two-Part" Analysis of a Speculative Senior Security:**
Begin by explicitly stating Graham's "two-part" test:
a) Its safety and value *as a fixed-income instrument* (its "investment value").
b) The value and attractiveness *of its speculative feature* (the "privilege").
**2. Analysis of the Bond as a Fixed-Income Instrument (Investment Value):**
Evaluate the bond *as if the conversion privilege did not exist*.
* **Quantitative Test: Earnings Coverage (Graham's Standard):**
* Calculate the **Times Interest Earned** (coverage) using the **7-year average** earnings ($120M) against total fixed charges ($25M).
* Calculate the coverage for the **worst year** ($70M).
* Compare these ratios to Graham's minimum standards for an industrial bond. Conclude if the earnings coverage provides an adequate **margin of safety**.
* **Quantitative Test: Leverage and Asset Protection:**
* Analyze the ratio of **Total Debt ($400M)** to **Book Value of Equity ($500M)**.
* Critically discuss the **subordinated status** of this debenture. How does the $200M in senior debt affect its claim on assets and earnings in a potential liquidation or reorganization?
* **Conclusion on Investment Value:**
* Based on its coverage, leverage, and subordinated status, state whether this bond *independently* qualifies as a sound, investment-grade security by Graham's standards.
* Compare your finding to its "Estimated 'Straight' Investment Value" ($900). Does this estimated price seem justified by your quantitative analysis?
**3. Analysis of the Speculative Feature (The Privilege):**
Now, analyze the "sweetener."
* **Calculate the Current Conversion Value:** Determine the value of the 25 shares of common stock at the current market price ($40/share).
* **Analyze the "Premium for the Privilege":**
* The bond is selling at $1,150.
* Its Conversion Value is (your calculation).
* Its "Straight" Investment Value is $900.
* Identify how much of the $1,150 market price is "investment value" ($900) and how much is "premium for the privilege" (the remaining amount paid *above* both its investment floor and its current conversion value).
**4. Final Synthesis and Conclusion:**
Synthesize your findings from both parts to form a final recommendation.
* **Is the Investor Paying for the Privilege?** Based on your analysis, is the investor paying a significant premium ($1,150 market price vs. $900 investment value) for the conversion option?
* **Graham's Verdict:** According to Graham, a true *investment* in this type of security should be justified *on its bond features alone*, with the privilege acting as a "cost-free" bonus.
* **Recommendation:** Does this bond meet Graham's standard for investment? Or is it a pure speculation where the investor is *sacrificing* safety (by overpaying $250 above its investment value) for a *chance* at future stock appreciation? Conclude if this security is an attractive or unattractive proposition for the "defensive" or "enterprising" investor as defined by Graham.
Question 1:
Graham identifies 3 categories of speculative features attached to senior securities that are attractive:
1. Convertible
2. Participating
3. Subscriptions
They are attractive as they have the safety of a senior security but also have the profit possibilities of an equity. As is the common theme throughout the book this is dependent on the price paid - they only offer value if the bond can be purchased at or near the price of a high quality bond. It's difficult to disagree with most of what Graham says thought the book, this is no exception as seems inherently sensible, the challenge would be finding these securities in the first place.
Question 2:
Graham states 2 reasons for this:
1. The majority of securities offering these features are backed by weaker companies - mainly as compensation for inadequate security. They didn’t qualify as a sound investment.
2. As the speculative features become more valuable this begins to dominate the price of bond, adding the possibility of losses as well as gains.
To understand what has happened over the last few decades I've looked for convertible bond funds. I found a couple of funds (Polar Capital and Lombadier), which have a 10 year track record. I've not been able to get the data series to compare to equities, but they have averaged a return of about 5%, qualitatively there prices don't appear to have less downside that stocks - it's difficult to know if this is because they are following an approach similar to that laid out by Graham, but the index does appear to show the shame general trends.
Question 3:
If the security is being purchased as an investment then term is more important. This is because term can more definitely be dealt with. Grahams reason for ignoring prospects in this scenario seems to invoke a version of the efficient market hypothesis - he assumes the option element of the bond is efficiently priced.
When bought for speculative purposes his reasoning flips and the prospects become more important as the buyer is judging the future prospects of the company.
To take the investment approach I think it would be necessary to find a number 10+(?) of securities from uncorrelated companies.
Question 4:
I’m struggling to find bond data for these exercises. If I identify a bond I can find all the information I need, prospectuses, company accounts etc, but the difficulty is screening for these types of securities. I've also struggled finding price data. I presume this is something that would be easier to do on a Bloomberg terminal or similar, which is out of my budget. If anyone knows of any low cost/free sources that would be great. Having said that I'm aware of Convertible Bonds from Jet2, unfortunately they redeemed earlier this year:
They were issued in 2021 as the airline industry began to recover from the COVID travel restrictions. There are a few features of the these bonds that would not make them suitable as senior bonds with speculative features. 1) after 3 years the company can redeem the shares at par. 2) Given the uncertainty of the industry at this time (and generally) I don't think they would have made a secure investment.
Question 5:
Graham believes they should be invested as if they were stocks and doesn't believe that the cap on maximum return is a limitation.
Question 6:
I think the value of high yield bonds has become more efficiently priced, looking at 10 year returns they are not as high as stocks, although they appear to be more stable. The introduction to Part 3 notes that Chapter 11 bankruptcies were only introduced around the time of writing of the 2nd edition. It also states that Chapter 11 bankruptcies increased the recoverable amounts of High Yield bonds.
Question 7:
I'm struggling to find bonds to answer this question.
Question 8: Create an AI prompt based on the material covered by Graham in Part 3 that would aid you in your investing.
I'm out of time on this
Ah I didn't think to check on Fred, unfortunately I couldn't see the index either. I could find the article referencing it though... https://www.newyorklifeinvestments.com/assets/mackay-shields/documents/insights/mackay-convertibles-why-now.pdf
I've just found a way to get a list of convertible bonds for the UK. The FCA (a regulator) holds all documents issued by companies (over the last 10'ish years) and has a searchable database here - https://data.fca.org.uk/#/nsm/nationalstoragemechanism. I just searched for 'convertible' in Document Description and got a list of 1400 documents.
1. The underlying security must be sound and the speculative feature adding value when purchased at a reasonable price - "for the long-pull, a sound participating issue represents the best form of profit-sharing privilege. A senior issue with detachable stock-purchase warrants is likely to show the best results.
2. The difference between promise and performance has not been met because: 1. only a small fraction of the privilege issues have met the rigorous requirements of a sound investment and 2. there is no upper limit to the price that a convertible bond may reach, these is a very real limitation on the amount of profit the holder might realize while still maintaining an investment position. We have been in a 40 year declining interest rate environment which may be changing to higher longer term rates which will have long term effects on bind prices.
3. It is true that it is more profitable to select the right company than to select the issue with the more desirable terms. Then it is important to focus on the terms of the privilege. Determine when the investment approach becomes the speculative approach.
4. Ford Motor Credit, Coupon 2.9%, due 2/10/2029, @93.589, ytm 5.035% ytw 5.035%, Callable in whole or part daily beginning 12/10/28 with 30 days notice. Graham may not see it as an investment, but perhaps as a place to park for short term returns. I may purchase it for the same reasons. If interest rates continue to decline, Ford may be able to refinance it at a lower rate.
5. " Does the smaller risk of loss involved in this low-priced bond, as compared with a common stock, compensate for the smaller possibilities of profit". " The sounder and more fruitful approach to the field of speculative senior securities lies from the direction of common stocks." They could be evaluated either way depending on the terms of the bond.
6. Yes, but maybe not to the same degree. Different factors may be more efficient markets in being able to price the differences and lower historical interest rates. Unusual circumstances may still arise making a security with speculative features an attractive investment. The valuation of the security would have to be thorough and in depth.
7. MPT Operating Partnership 3.5% due 3/15/2031, Make whole call with special redemption provisions. Ytm 9.726%, ytw 9.726% @ 74.34, rates CCC+. The spread should be at least between 77-100 and this bond is lower. This is a fund used for financing the building medical facilities. The medical sector is financially opaque having involvement by both private credit and private equity. There are too many unknowns to be able to fully value with any degree of confidence.
8. What is the best method to use in valuing a convertible bond?
Question 5:
Where does Graham place speculative fixed income securities (high-yield bonds/junk bonds) on the continuum between stocks and high-grade bonds? Would his classification be the same in the current market, and if not how would it differ? How does Graham suggest approaching investing in such securities?
He thought of them as a half way house with some of the attractive features of both: equity possibility of significant capital growth and bond like security of principle. The modern world has a greater ability to quantify the value of both the bond and option part and therefore assesses them more as a sum of two components rather than either/or as Graham did. Hence he would recommend assessing them as either a bond with safety of principle or as a potentially attractive speculative play.
Question 6:
Are the inefficiencies that Graham refers to for all of these security types still the same today. Why/why not? If not, which ones have become more vs. less efficient?
Many of Graham’s cautions have been addressed in the modern world.
More liquidity
Better credit rating techniques
Better understanding of the need for scrutiny of the terms and analysis of the payoffs.
Faster retrieval of assets from failures
Better models of value like Black–Scholes model for pricing the option part of the preferred bond (1974)
Better models of risk sizing (Merton share 1969)
I believe these justify higher valuations and less margin of safety. Whether he would is open to debate, but he struck me as smart flexible and adaptable as an operator with experience in both bull and bear markets so I believe he would have adjusted his thinking in line with conditions and the facts.
Question 7
Find a high-yield security and analyze it using Graham’s approach. Would he consider it attractive? Do you?
Fastly, Inc.’s 7.75% Convertible Senior Notes due June 1, 2028
Feature Description / Details
Issue date / offering The notes were issued on December 5, 2024, via an indenture between Fastly and U.S. Bank Trust Company as trustee.
Aggregate principal / size $150.0 million principal amount of 2028 Notes were issued.
Purpose / funding use Fastly used the proceeds from the issuance to repurchase approximately $157.9 million aggregate principal amount of its existing 0.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2026.
Interest / coupon 7.75% per annum, paid semi-annually in arrears on June 1 and December 1 of each year, starting June 1, 2025.
Maturity date June 1, 2028 (unless earlier converted, redeemed, or repurchased)
Seniority / security These are senior, unsecured obligations of Fastly. There is no specific collateral backing them.
Conversion option Noteholders have the option (under certain conditions) to convert their notes into Fastly’s Class A common stock (or cash, or a mix, at Fastly’s election).
Initial conversion rate / conversion price The initial conversion rate is 50.6586 shares per $1,000 principal amount of notes. That implies a conversion price of ~$19.74 per share ($1,000 ÷ 50.6586)
Conversion premium That conversion price (~$19.74) represented a ~100% premium above the last reported sale price of the common stock on the NYSE as of December 2, 2024.
Anti-dilution adjustments The conversion rate is subject to customary adjustments (e.g. for stock splits, dividends, etc.).
Redemption / optional call The 2028 Notes are not redeemable by Fastly prior to maturity (i.e. no optional call prior to maturity)
Fundamental change repurchase right If a “fundamental change” (as defined in the indenture) occurs, noteholders can require Fastly to repurchase all or part of their notes for cash at 100% of principal plus accrued interest.
Make-whole / adjustment rights In certain corporate transaction events before maturity, Fastly may need to increase the conversion rate for holders who convert in connection with those events.
Events of default The indenture lays out standard default triggers including (i) nonpayment of interest or principal, (ii) failure to convert when due, (iii) failures to give required notices, (iv) covenant violations, (v) bankruptcy/insolvency events, etc.
Sinking fund No sinking fund is provided for the 2028 Notes.
these are high yield and significantly under water with regards to the option to convert. Most of the value therefore lies in the bond rather than the option. There is no formal credit rating. ChatGPT estimates a BB- rating based on losses, but positive EBITDA of $42m covering interest around 4x. Assuming an average 3% default rate for this credit rating gives a 7.75% - 3% - 3.8= 95 basis point premium. That plus any return from bankruptcy (estimated 100bp approx) and a small value from the option, gives some upside for the brave investor. Graham would certainly not buy this one and neither would I unless I thought the company had some chance of significant improvement. Under those circumstances it could be a clever play. You are being paid well to wait, you are at the front of the queue in case of disaster and you might get a bonus if things go well. I don’t know enough about Fastly’s business model to be confident of an assessment but I do know that trying to compete in a fast moving industry without the capital to invest is usually a recipe for eventual failure.
Question 8
Create an AI prompt based on the material covered by Graham in Part 3 that would aid you in your investing.
I found that several prompts rather than one were helpful
I have found that simply posting the full name of the issue will give a very useful and unbiased assessment of the main points to consider on a convertible bond.
For more understanding asking:
“Summarise the terms and logic behind the current pricing of [bond name] “
also provides useful insights into the interplay and payoff’s between yield and option.
Asking to estimate the credit rating is also useful if the company is unrated:
“Make an estimate of Fastly, Inc. credit rating based on its latest accounts”
The results need to be looked at with caution here because this is a complex area, but still useful.
I would be careful in outsourcing judgement to LLMs (as in asking it for a credit rating). I think they are better earlier in the process where you as the final decisionmaker can take their input and build on it to reach your own conclusion. Just my current 2c, we are all still learning as this is so new.
Question 1: Graham says that senior securities with speculative features are attractive in form since they combine the safety of bonds along with the upside characteristics of equities. I agree with him on the form.
However, practicing it is hard because one is rarely able to get securities which have either the safety of a bond as well as the upside characteristics of equity. Most of the securities do not have adequate security and the promise of unlimited profits tend to be illusory.
Interestingly, Buffett has been investing in similar securities from time to time. 2008- Goldman Sachs investment. 2019- Occidental Petroleum investment. However, such investments have been sporadic, and have happened in times when the companies were distressed, and when Buffett could negotiate these large investments with the board of directors.
Question 2: 2 reasons why investing in such securities has been unenviable.
The equity upside is given as enticement to compensate for lack of safety in the underlying enterprise.
While, theoretically profits from the speculative feature of the instrument is unlimited, practically it is not. When the stock is overpriced, the bond should also advance in value (due to the conversion privilege). Holding onto the bond at that price may not be an “investment” decision, and may be a “speculative” decision.
Such instruments have not done particularly well in the last 20-30 years in relation to equities. They suffered in 2008, and also in 2022 when interest rates rose sharply. High rates, and high business risks have caused these instruments to suffer.
Question 3. Graham stresses the importance of underlying enterprise far more than the terms of the speculative features. His view is that, if the enterprise loses strengths, the speculative features alone won’t be enough to rescue the investment.
Question 4. Bank of America 7.25% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock, Series L.
Liquidation value of $1,000. It is convertible to 20 shares of Bank of America at $50/share. Therefore, the speculative component is 80% of the price.
Bank of America is a leading bank with S&P 500 rating of A+. Therefore with at a coupon rate of 7.25%, the earnings yield is ~5.8%.
Graham could consider the bond component to be attractive since its a leading enterprise and a strong bond with a good credit rating.
I don’t consider this to be an attractive investment since I don’t understand large US banks enough.
Question 5. Graham places these between stocks and high-grade bonds. The current market has a large number of such types of instruments, which are different in form but similar in essence, and therefore his classification would be valid.
Graham’s suggestion is simple. These securities should either make investment sense as a bond (a high grade bond) or as a stock. Something that is neither a safe bond investment, nor an attractive stock investment- but somewhere in between- is where Graham says one can get hurt.
Question 6. Inefficiencies still exist- in 2022, Vedanta Resources bonds were available at 40% yield to maturity.
In 2002, Buffett was able to buy Amazon bonds at 30% yields.
In 2022, the stock of IRFC, a sovereign backed lending institution in India, with a mandated dividend payout of 30% of profits traded at a dividend yield of 8.5%, while its bonds yielded 7%.
While information is more available, and there are far more technically capable analysts competing against us in the market, mispricings are governed by fear and emotions. Also, many investment decision makers have little skin in the game- they are concerned with saving their jobs more than protecting their client’s capital. These behavioural aspects are permanent part of the human condition. These lead to mispricings, which are likely to continue.
Question 7. Brookfield Oaktree Series A: “6.625 % Series A Preferred Units - OAK-PA, par value $25.
Currently trading at $21.5. This earns a yield of 7.68%. Debt to equity is around 0.25x. (EBITDA- barebones maintenance capex)/fixed charges is around 5x.
He would consider it reasonably attractive as it is very safe, but its upside opportunities are limited. I’d consider it similarly.
Question 8. I used Notebook LM to create a prompt for ChatGPT which seems to work well to evaluate such securities in a checklist like manner.
CONTEXT
I am studying Part III, "Senior Securities with Speculative Features" (Chapters XXIII–XXVI) from Security Analysis by Benjamin Graham and David L. Dodd. This section focuses on privileged senior issues (convertibles, participating issues, and warrants) and senior securities of questionable safety. I need to practice analyzing these securities using Graham’s methodology.
GOAL 1: Identification and Listing Details
For a hypothetical or historical senior security (Bond or Preferred Stock) that possesses a speculative feature, please provide the following details:
Classification: Clearly state whether it is a Convertible Issue, a Participating Issue, an Issue with Warrants, or a Senior Security of Questionable Safety.
Listing Details & Terms: Provide core descriptive facts, including:
The nominal value (par/face value) and coupon rate or dividend rate.
The price of the senior security (Bond/Preferred Stock) and the current market price of the related Common Stock.
The exact terms of the speculative feature (e.g., conversion ratio, subscription price, or participation limits).
The existence and terms of any callable feature.
GOAL 2: Analysis Based on Graham’s Principles
Analyze the security described above strictly according to Graham’s methods for speculative senior issues. Ensure the analysis covers the following points:
Dual Approach Assessment: Determine which approach the purchase must satisfy:
The strict requirements of a Straight Fixed-Value Investment, or
The objectives of a Straight Common-Stock Speculation.
Evaluation of the Privilege (If Applicable): Analyze the attractiveness of the privilege based on two major factors:
Terms: Evaluate the practical significance of the privilege by calculating the Extent of the Privilege(speculative interest per dollar) and assessing its Closeness to a Realizable Profit.
Enterprise Prospects: Discuss whether the security relies predominantly on the future expansion of profits (which Graham generally discouraged for the investment approach).
Low-Grade/Safety Check (If Applicable): If the security is identified as being of Questionable Safety (i.e., low-grade), analyze it from the Common-stock Approach:
Apply the Rule of Maximum Valuation for Senior Issues by comparing the security’s valuation to what the common stock would be worth if it represented complete ownership of the company (i.e., if it were “commonized”).
Determine if there is a Large Net-Current-Asset Coverage which might justify the commitment, especially if adopting a diversified, quasi-investment approach.
GOAL 3: Highlighting Inherent Risks
Identify and articulate the key inherent disadvantages and risks associated with this specific type of senior security, as identified in Part III of Security Analysis. This must include:
Callable/Suspension Risk: Explain how early redemption or suspension of the privilege limits maximum potential profit and acts as a major drawback, even if the issue is otherwise attractive.
Dilution or Sliding-Scale Risk: Describe how the structure (e.g., changing conversion prices or issue of new shares) may prevent the senior security from appreciating commensurately with the common stock.
Behavior Limitations (Low-Grade Issues): If applicable, explain that purely speculative investors usually prefer common stocks because low-priced senior issues are subject to upper limitations on potential market value and income return, making them a “misfit category.”
For Q1, think about the upside/downside relationship for say a convertible bond as the price of the stock goes up. What happens to the price of the convert? To the downside in holding the convert at the new prices?
1: Graham says senior securities with speculative features look attractive because they seem to give you bondlike safety with a little extra upside. Things like convertibility or profit sharing sound clever. The issue is that the good part usually favors the issuer while the holder still carries most of the risk. I agree with that. They look safe but act like traps when the business weakens.
2: He says their long-term record has been poor because the extra features rarely protect investors when things go bad. History supports that. Preferred shares dropped hard in the 2008 crisis, 2020, and 2022 rate spike. Contingent convertibles, or CoCos, and AT1s are a modern version. They pay a high coupon but can be written down or converted in stress. Credit Suisse AT1 holders were wiped out in 2023, and only this year did a Swiss court partly reverse that decision. Convertibles have done better, but many still end up “busted.” So overall, the record fits what Graham warned about.
3: Graham thought the strength of the business mattered far more than the fine print. If the enterprise is weak, no terms will save you. I agree. The documents matter, but a solid earning base and conservative balance sheet are what really protect the investor.
4: A current example would be a large bank’s AT1 bond. I’ve read a bit about them. They pay high yields but can be converted or written off if capital falls below a trigger. Graham would call that a senior security with speculative features and would likely pass, since the downside is large and the “protection” depends on regulators and market conditions. I’d feel the same way.
5: Graham placed speculative bonds between common stock and high-grade debt. They behave more like stocks when things get rough. His view still applies. High-yield debt trades closely with equity risk. He would tell investors to treat it as equity in disguise, demand big margins of safety, and use diversification instead of picking single names.
6: Inefficiencies have changed. Better disclosure and electronic trading make pricing more efficient most of the time, but the products are also more complex. In calm periods these markets look efficient, but in stress they break down fast. The structure and legal language around hybrids create pockets of confusion that look a lot like what Graham described in the 1930s.
7: One example of a high-yield bond is the Carvana 10¼ percent note due 2030. Using Graham’s checklist, interest coverage is tight, leverage is high, and the business is still turning around. He’d probably say it doesn’t meet the test for a sound bond unless it trades at a very steep discount with visible cash-flow improvement. I’d agree. It’s equity-type risk wrapped in a bond. Maybe worth a look inside a diversified basket, not on its own.
8: For Part 3 I’d try a “meta” prompt that helps generate useful follow-up prompts. Something like:
Meta Prompt:
“Act as an expert on Benjamin Graham and on Security Analysis, Part 3. Generate five prompts a long-term investor could use to analyze senior securities with speculative features such as convertibles, preferreds, or AT1s. At the top, summarize the goal of each prompt, then provide the detailed prompts below. reasoning_effort = high.”
If I actually ran it, the output might look something like this:
1. Goal: Assess downside protection.
Prompt: “Using Graham’s criteria for safety of principal, analyze a hybrid security’s interest coverage, asset backing, and convertibility triggers. Identify which factors make it more like a bond versus more like equity.”
2. Goal: Compare form versus substance.
Prompt: “Summarize how a company’s marketing of a preferred or convertible differs from its real risk exposure. Highlight the gap between promised yield and true safety.”
3. Goal: Evaluate terms versus enterprise strength.
Prompt: “Weigh the relative importance of the security’s terms against the earning power of the issuer. Show scenarios where strong terms fail because the business is weak.”
4. Goal: Detect mispricing in modern hybrids.
Prompt: “Screen current convertible and AT1 markets for issues that may be priced inconsistently with underlying credit risk. Explain where today’s inefficiencies resemble those Graham described.”
5. Goal: Estimate margin of safety for speculative bonds.
Prompt: “Apply Graham’s margin-of-safety framework to a high-yield bond. Compute how much coverage or price discount is required for the security to qualify as a sound investment.”
Regarding Q2, then what do you make of the passage on p. 300 (6th edition), specifically: "But in analyzing privileged issues of the investment grade, the terms of the privilege must receive the greater attention, not because they are more important but because they can be more definitely dealt with."
Your recall of the book is impressive. I’ll admit it’s challenging enough for me to just get through the text and grasp the details. That said, I know application is the backbone of learning.
To your question, I reread that section and offer the following.
Graham is saying that when you analyze an investment grade issue that includes a special privilege, like convertibility, you give more attention to the terms because they are clear and measurable. You can calculate exactly how the privilege works. The company’s future earnings are less certain. He is not saying the terms are more important than the business itself, only that they can be dealt with more definitely. Once the business strength is established, the privilege is the part you can evaluate with real precision.
1. A senior security can be given virtually all the profit possibilities that attach to the common stock of the enterprise. Such issues must therefore be considered most attractive in the point of form. — I do agree with that being the case regarding the forms that he describes. If I were given the option to invest in a security that provided a cumulative secured coupon with an additional “coupon” of purchasing common at a specified price, I’d probably choose that type of issue in most circumstances. However, it seems like with the exception of private issuance (such as Berkshire Hathaway’s Occidental Petroleum warrants) it it doesn’t appear that many of these types of issues are extended to the public. Maybe because capital is less scarce than during Graham’s day, or maybe there is a change of norms on wall street these days compared to then, so such issues are simply out of fashion, or it is also possible that I’ve not looked hard enough to find them, as is so often the case with inefficient portions of the market.
2. Reason 1) there has only been a small fraction of these privileged issues which met the rigorous requirements of a sound investment. (As Munger would have said: “cereal mixed with turds is still turds”). Reason 2) There is an upper bound by which the investment transfigures into a speculative position based upon outlook for the common. — To me this further illustrates the Mark’s sentiment that price paid is instrumental in determining the nature of the risk that is being taken up through purchase.
3. page 300 “As between the two factors, it is undoubtably true that it is more profitable to select the right company, and to select the issue with the most desirable terms. There was certainly no mathematical basis on which the attractiveness of the enterprise may be offset against the terms of the privilege, and a balanced truck between these two entirely disassociated elements of value. But an analyzing privileged issues of the investment grade, the terms of the privilege must receive the greater attention, not because they are more important but because they can be more definitively dealt with. I may seem a comparatively easy manner to determine that one enterprise is more promising than another. But it is by no means so easy to establish that one common stock of a given price is clearly preferable to another stock at its current price.” — Now if I’m reading this correctly he’s saying that there are many means by which we can determine which company may be a better investment, but it is the equivalent of grasping at straws to determine which issues (taken separate from the companies underlying) constituent an investment. Essential, one most always determine which companies are worth investing in, then to determine which of that companies issues offer the best terms.— If I do in fact understand that correctly, then that seems entirely reasonable. It also allows for any number of issues to lead you to study the company (let say the common hits a 52W low) but the due diligence must always be done, then an issue selected. Restated from the world of chess: if you see a good move, look for a better one.
4. —
5. Paraphrasing from page 324, they exist on a spectrum between the two issues, and would be positioned closer to stocks than toward investment grade bonds. Perhaps this is due to his discussion of the stability of the company at large (investment criteria) vs. sacrifice of potential gains. — The modern market correlate I would consider is the act of writing covered calls. The coupon is safe (since you already have it when writing the option) but are you being adequately compensated for selling away the upside? I’m positive that this isn’t what Graham was talking about specifically, but the market is large and there are only certain places that I have any experience to draw from. — The final full paragraph on 324 makes me think that he wants a person to approach these securities not as a negative art, because the main identifying factor here is the upside.
6. In short, I don’t know, but I believe in general that the market has gotten faster since Graham’s day (both in veering off course and correcting from that veering), so the magnitude of inefficiencies are likely just as present as they were historically but without allowing the same breadth of window of opportunity. I say that, but if we consider Thomas Phelps’ statement: “It’s more important to be right, than to be quick.” perhaps I’m wrong… In general though Graham doesn’t speak of investment in the sense of “compounding” as does Phelps, but rather in the sense of “correcting.”
Brilliant and Simple - "ability to pay."
Apologies @gary for the late submission - had a difficult week being unwell. But many thanks for this wonderful opportunity to re-visit SA many years after the Great Recession
Question 1: Why does Graham believe that Senior Securities with Speculative Features are typically attractive in form? Do you agree?
A1:
1. He believes these are typically attractive in form because the seniority allows for safety and the speculative features of the privilege to convert provides a chance of unlimited appreciation
2. I agree. Evidence of this presented on pp [306] “the best results are obtained by holders of senior securities with detachable stock-purchase warrants.” showing that in a stricking manner that “issues with purchase warrants have a tendency to sell at large premiums in relation to the common-stock price”. This combination also appears to be a favorite of Buffet when he invests in distressed assets. Example follows:
a. 10% Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series G (the “Preferred Shares”) and a warrant to purchase 43,478,260 shares of its Voting Common Stock (the “Warrant” and, together with the Preferred Shares, the “Purchased Securities”) Source: Securities Purchase Agreement between Goldman Sach and Berkshire Hathaway, September 29, 2008.
Question 2: Graham states that the record of such securities has been unenviable. Why? See if you can do some research about whether that statement has been true in recent times - e.g. the last 20-30 years.
A2:
1. He states that the record is unenviable because the speculative “feature has most often been offered to compensate for inadequate security” before the crash (1926-1929) with the firms with strong balance sheets issuing stock and the weaker ones issuing privileged senior securities.
2. The statement is probably not true in times of distress as demonstrated in the above Goldman Sachs deal.
Question 3: What are Graham’s views on the importance of the terms of the speculative features in such securities vs. the prospects of the underlying enterprise? What do you think about this balance?
A3:
1. Graham does say it is more profitable to consider the prospects of the underlying enterprise (pp [300])
2. I think if is an investment operation, then the first hurdle to clear is that the enterprise has promising prospects (strong balance sheet with solid and preferably growing owner earnings via a moat) and once that hurdle is crossed and the issue is found to be investment grade, then the terms of the privilege start to matter and the balance shifts. It appears that this is more path dependent than a true balance.
Question 4: Find a current security that Graham would classify as a Senior Security with Speculative Features. Would Graham consider it attractive at the current price? Why? Do you? Why?
A4: N/A
Question 5: Where does Graham place speculative fixed income securities (high-yield bonds/junk bonds) on the continuum between stocks and high-grade bonds? Would his classification be the same in the current market, and if not how would it differ? How does Graham suggest approaching investing in such securities?
A5:
1. On the continuum between stocks and high-grade bonds, Graham appears to place speculative fixed income securities directionally from the angle of stocks. (“Common-stock Approach Preferable” pp [324])
2. The classification appears to be the same in the current market where the high yield issues appear to behave like common stocks with a few emerging exceptions
a. High yield issuance by private equity funded companies is significant so common stock related disclosures may not be readily available
b. Private credit issuance may have further side-effects on the placement of speculative fixed income securities available publicly for investment in the continuum
Question 6: Are the inefficiencies that Graham refers to for all of these security types still the same today. Why/why not? If not, which ones have become more vs. less efficient?
A6:
1. Yes, the inefficiencies are still there but to a lesser extent, for example, see suspension of dividends and bankruptcies of shale oil drillers in the recent past.
2. Why is it still the same? Despite deeper markets, more complex forms of debt are emerging along with new types of fraud leading to surprise defaults – these security types are typically not sound investments on an individual basis
3. Why is it still not the same? The private equity and speculative fixed income markets have become deeper over time and it is possible as an investment operation on a aggregate basis to compensate for the lack of investment grade creditworthiness
4. New forms of speculative financing not tested by a large crisis may be inefficient
Question 7: Find a high-yield security and analyze it using Graham’s approach. Would he consider it attractive? Do you?
A7: N/A
Question 8: Create an AI prompt based on the material covered by Graham in Part 3 that would aid you in your investing.
A8: N/A
Question 1: Why does Graham believe that Senior Securities with Speculative Features are typically attractive in form? Do you agree?
Graham argues that senior securities with speculative features are attractive in form because they appear to offer the best of both worlds: the downside protection of a bond with the upside of equity. In theory, that mix is appealing, and I can understand the draw even though I haven’t seriously considered convertibles in my own investing.
However, Graham’s underlying warning is that this balance is often illusory. When the equity performs well, the bond protection becomes irrelevant; when it performs poorly, the conversion privilege is worthless. My takeaway is similar—while the structure sounds appealing on paper, it raises the question of why an investor wouldn’t simply choose between owning the stock or the bond outright.
That said, convertibles can play a useful role in reducing return volatility across market cycles (Oaktree, The Case for Convertible Bonds, 2020). They’re interesting to consider at the portfolio level, but I’d be cautious about how and why I’d use them—echoing Graham’s distinction between intelligent and unintelligent speculation. Perhaps a diversified basket or ETF of convertibles could make sense as part of a broader allocation, rather than relying on a single convertible to hedge downside on an individual stock where my conviction may be lower. The presence of convertible financing may make me question the company's stability. I may just need to further explore these types of issues to understand any benefits better.
Question 2: Graham states that the record of such securities has been unenviable. Why? See if you can do some research about whether that statement has been true in recent times - e.g. the last 20-30 years.
While convertibles seem attractive—offering bond-like protection with equity upside—Graham warned there’s “no free lunch.” Few issues meet true investment standards; the conversion feature often compensates for weaker credit quality. Once “in the money,” convertibles trade more like equity, losing their fixed-income protection.
This remains true today. Convertibles are still a cheaper source of capital, typically used by weaker issuers (Oaktree, The Case for Convertible Bonds, 2020). Issuance often spikes during volatile or speculative periods—such as 2003, 2007, and 2020—with 2003 and 2007 preceding major market pullbacks. Dealogic reports another peak issuance year in 2025 at $81B, the highest in five years (Reuters). Performance continues to track volatility: from 2006–2015, convertibles returned +0.85% versus a 60/40 portfolio amid 20 volatility; from 2015–2018, they fell –3.29% as volatility declined to 14 (Morgan Stanley, 2019 Market Outlook: It’s All Relative).
Question 3: What are Graham’s views on the importance of the terms of the speculative features in such securities vs. the prospects of the underlying enterprise? What do you think about this balance?
Graham draws a subtle distinction between the terms of the speculative feature and the prospects of the underlying enterprise. In theory, choosing the right company is more profitable—but in practice, investors can rarely do so with confidence. From an investment perspective, Graham advises focusing on the terms, since they are objective and quantifiable (e.g., a $30 stock convertible at $33 has a much lower hurdle than one at $50). He cautions that market prices generally already reflect differences in company quality, and relying on forecasts of profit expansion drifts into speculation. By contrast, under a speculative approach, the enterprise’s prospects matter more, since the investor is deliberately betting on future growth.
I think Graham strikes a realistic balance here: investors should recognize their limits in forecasting and anchor on definable terms, while speculators can lean into business prospects—but should do so consciously. I also recall Graham’s distinction between intelligent and unintelligent speculation—the former being done knowingly and within one’s competence, the latter being blind optimism. His framework reminds investors to understand which game they’re playing and why.
Question 4: Find a current security that Graham would classify as a Senior Security with Speculative Features. Would Graham consider it attractive at the current price? Why? Do you? Why?
Security: STRK, Strategy Inc 8.00% Series A Perpetual Preferred
Key Features: 8% cumulative dividend, conversion ratio 0.1 MSTR per STRK
Current MSTR price: $280.81
Conversion value: 0.1 × $280.81 = $28.08; STRK market price: $87.98
Break-even for conversion: MSTR ~ $880/share
Graham would likely appreciate STRK’s cumulative dividend. However, the conversion option is deeply out of the money, making the security highly speculative. The 8% yield is attractive, but MicroStrategy’s volatile earnings the last 5 years and substantial Bitcoin holdings introduce significant risk. I agree with Graham — despite the dividend, I would avoid this security due to its speculative nature and uncertain coverage.
Question 5: Where does Graham place speculative fixed income securities (high-yield bonds/junk bonds) on the continuum between stocks and high-grade bonds? Would his classification be the same in the current market, and if not how would it differ? How does Graham suggest approaching investing in such securities?
Graham places speculative fixed-income securities—such as high-yield bonds and preferred stocks—closer to equities than to high-grade bonds on the investment spectrum. Because their safety of principal depends heavily on the issuer’s earnings power, he recommends analyzing them much like common stocks, with emphasis on the company’s financial condition, industry prospects, and potential for recovery or growth.
Graham notes that such securities can occasionally offer unique advantages: they may trade at deeper discounts to intrinsic value than common stocks and still provide some contractual return through coupons or preferred dividends, offering a partial buffer against downside.
In the current market, however, conditions differ. High-yield spreads are near historic lows (~300 bps vs. a 500 bps average), signaling tight valuations and limited risk premium—in other words, investors are being paid very little for assuming credit risk. Equities likewise trade at elevated valuations, suggesting both asset classes sit at the high end of the mean-reversion cycle.
While Graham would still classify speculative bonds as equity-like, he would likely find today’s environment unattractive. He’d probably advise waiting for wider spreads or distressed pricing that provides a greater margin of safety before investing in these securities.
Question 6: Are the inefficiencies that Graham refers to for all of these security types still the same today. Why/why not? If not, which ones have become more vs. less efficient?
I believe this is referring to issues covered by net current assets. Yes it seems these have become harder to come by. Information spreads faster these days, but some other factors could include QE/high liquidity/capital inflows raising valuations and asset light tech companies mean less current assets. I saw a podcast recently where Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) was pitched as a net-net, so opportunities still exist on the margin, especially in undercovered segments like small caps.
Question 7: Find a high-yield security and analyze it using Graham’s approach. Would he consider it attractive? Do you?
Kohl’s 5.125% Notes due May 2031 (Price ≈78)
This bond is a high-yield, speculative security. Kohl’s sales have declined ~16% from 2022–2025, and the department store segment faces structural headwinds from e-commerce and off-price competitors. Management turnover and an incomplete turnaround plan add execution risk, and competitive advantages are modest. Graham would likely not find this attractive given this outlook and I would agree.
Question 8: Create an AI prompt based on the material covered by Graham in Part 3 that would aid you in your investing.
AI Prompt — Graham Analysis of Speculative Senior Securities (High-Yield Bonds)
"Analyze the following high-yield or speculative bond as Benjamin Graham would. Fill in details for each section:
Bond Details:
Issuer: ______
Industry: ______
Bond Coupon / Maturity / Price / Yield: ______
Seniority / Collateral / Covenants: ______
1. Financial Health & Coverage:
Earnings stability: ______
Cash flow vs interest coverage: ______
Leverage (Debt/EBITDA): _____
Liquidity: ______
2. Margin of Safety:
Compare current price to intrinsic value or liquidation value: ______
Discount or premium to fair value: ______
3. Qualitative Risks:
Industry trends / structural headwinds: ______
Management quality & execution risk: ______
Competitive pressures: ______
4. Upside / Downside Potential:
Likely price recovery or default risk: ______
Scenarios under which the bond could outperform/underperform: ______
5. Graham Assessment:
Speculative or investment-grade: ______
Would Graham find it attractive? Why / why not: ______
6. Personal Judgment:
Risk/reward summary: ______
Would you consider this security for a speculative allocation? ______
"Use financial ratios, industry context, and recent market trends to support your answers. Provide concise reasoning for each section."
I thought this quote in the intro to part 3 (6th ed.) was kind of interesting given AI trends:
“As long as investors remain human, and thus subject to greed, fear, pressure, doubt, and the entire range of human emotions, there will be money to be made by those who steel themselves to overcome emotion.” Pg 288 J. Ezra Merkin
Question 1:
Form wise they offer the best of both worlds. Defensive safe bond-like qualities with potential upside like common stock offers.
Question 2:
In practice they seem to underperform. Only companies which are struggling would offer investors such a security.
A broad look: According to a society-of-actuaries study, over a 25-year span the convertible bond index delivered about 11.8% annualized compared to ~13.7% for the S&P 500
This is surprising to me as I would have expected much more outperformance of S&P 500 with the bull run we have been on recently. Still underperforms equities, but may be worth the tradeoff for security. During downfalls, convertible bonds would fall less than equities.
Question 3:
Need to first look at the terms of the security to understand the upside potential before looking at the prospects of the underlying enterprise.
I disagree I would use the quality of the company and management to screen which companies I would even look at the convertible bonds of. After this screening I would start with the features of each issue.
Question 4:
Boeing 6.00% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred (NYSE: BA.PRA)
Form: depositary shares, each = 1/20th of a share of Boeing’s 6.00% mandatory convertible preferred. Dividends are 6% on the $50 liquidation preference of each depositary share, paid quarterly if declared. It must convert to common stock in Oct 2027.
Speculative feature: the conversion is price-dependent. Each depositary share will settle into between ~0.2914 and 0.3497 BA common shares; the breakpoints correspond to ~$171.5854 (cap) and $142.9797 (floor) on BA’s stock. (Between those prices the settlement rate is $50 ÷ “applicable market value”.)
Why “senior security with speculative features”: it sits senior to common (preferred), but ultimate economics hinge on equity price at conversion — classic Graham category. Boeing described the structure and 6% terms when it priced the deal in Oct-2024.
BA.PRA ≈ $69.40 (recent close). At $3.00/yr in dividends per unit, the current yield ≈ 4.3%.
BA common ≈ $217–218 today. At that level, the preferred would convert at the minimum share rate (~0.2914), implying a conversion value of ~$63.5 (0.2914×$217.8). Add ≈ $6 of remaining dividends to Oct-2027, and you land near $69.5—basically parity with today’s BA.PRA price.
Graham would not like this issue. His hierarchy was terms first, prospects second. Here, the terms cap your upside (min share rate above ~$171.6) and offer limited downside (you still convert if BA falls). With BA.PRA trading roughly at its parity value versus the common (given BA ≈ $218), there’s no evident “margin of safety” in the contract or the price.
I equally do not like this issue. The mandatory conversion with a sliding range of exchanges mean downside and limited upside.
Question 5:
In between high-grade bonds and stocks. He views high-yield bonds/junk bonds as stock like and possibly equally as speculative.
Modern credit markets have evolved—junk bonds are now an institutional asset class with diversified ETFs, ratings transparency, and liquidity. With more information available to all investors, risks are better understood and I believe it is easier for an investor to operate in this asset class.
Question 6:
No markets have become way more efficient. Graham even noticed at the end of his life it was way harder to find mispricing. There is also more access to retail investors leading to momentum mispricing based on sentiment.
Question 7:
Security: Senior unsecured notes, due May 1, 2029, paying 5.125% semi-annually. Notes are unsecured but guaranteed by Carnival plc and certain subs that also guarantee the company’s first-lien debt; marketed with IG-style covenants.
Where it sits in the stack: Behind sizable secured borrowings raised during/after 2020 (e.g., second-priority secured notes referenced in loan docs). In distress, unsecured recoveries would be after those secured claims.
Current pricing/yield: Quoted near 101–102, implying ~4.8–5.1% YTM as of late September/October 2025.
Operating momentum: Record profitability and revenue; FY-2025 guidance raised again. Company flagged record net income and stronger net yields.
Leverage trajectory: Management is pushing net debt / adj. EBITDA toward <3×; S&P revised outlook to Positive and expects about 3.5× by FY-2025 year-end. Moody’s also upgraded (Ba3).
Refinancing progress: Active liability management and new 2029 unsecured issuance at 5.125% help term out debt.
Graham would not find this attractive. Only slightly more yield than the 3.6 10 year treasuries. There is not enough margin of safety to justify the increased risk of this company. I would echo this sentiment. My sentiment is more towards picking winners than discarding losers, so I would steer away from individual issues in high yield bonds and go with a diversified ETF.
Question 8:
You are Benjamin Graham, analyzing a bond or preferred stock as described in Security Analysis, Part III.
Your goal is to determine whether this security qualifies as a true investment or a speculative issue, based strictly on quantitative safety, qualitative soundness, and margin of safety.
Analyze the following inputs about the issuer and security:
Type of security (bond, preferred stock, convertible, etc.)
Coupon/dividend rate and maturity
Credit rating (if available)
Earnings and interest coverage ratios
Balance sheet data (assets, debt, equity, cash)
Industry stability and competitive position
Recent operating trends and management quality
Then answer, step-by-step:
Safety of Principal: Is there sufficient assurance of payment? Evaluate interest coverage, leverage, and tangible asset protection.
Earning Stability: Have earnings shown consistent coverage of fixed charges through a full business cycle?
Margin of Safety: Quantify how much earnings or assets exceed the minimum needed to support the debt or preferred dividends.
Qualitative Soundness: Assess the nature of the business, management integrity, and cyclicality.
Classification: Does it meet Graham’s test of an investment (safe principal and satisfactory return) or is it speculative?
Valuation Judgment: Given current market price and yield, is the investor being compensated for risk?
Conclude with:
Investment-grade (meets Graham’s standard)
Speculative but possibly attractive if cheap enough
Speculative without sufficient margin of safety
Summarize the reasoning clearly in both quantitative (numbers) and qualitative (business character) terms.
Q1
Privileged securities promises bond-like protections while also giving the chance to participate in the potential upside of common stock. It definitely sounds attractive, like a way to have your cake and eat it too. That rarely works out though, so I agree that although 'form' looks good, but further investigation would be need to ensure the foundation is good.
Q2
The 'equity kicker' is often thrown in to compensate for a lack of real safety. Graham noted that companies raising funding in equity markets are usually on stronger footing financially than those issuing privileged securities. Buyers of these securities are betting on weaker foundations and therefor have less downside protection. He also noted that the promised upside is difficult to capture without becoming a speculator. Timing the sale or conversion becomes critical because the bond's prices is tied to the volatile swings of the common stock. Like a lottery ticket, the potential reward is high, but the odds of winning are very low: unenviable. A brief search indicates that Graham's view still holds today. In bull markets, privileged securities have tracked equities, but they have failed to offer protection during downturns.
Q3
If the terms of a speculative are weak, overly complicated or so confusing that one cannot clearly measure of safety, it's unattractive even if the company's financials are sound. If the terms are clear but the business has weak earning power, no amount of special features will fix that problem. If the terms are clear and fair and the business is strong, the security is potentially an investment option. I agree that a strong financial foundation is a primary factor when evaluating any security, so the balance he promotes seems reasonable.
Q4
"Bank of America Corp. 7.25% Non-Cum. Perp. Conv. Pfd. Series L" (Price: ~$1,252)
Earnings coverage appears more than sufficient, but protection is limited as preferred stock is subordinate. The rate is attractive but the income is not guaranteed (noncumulative and discretionary). Conversion into common stock adds upside but moving into common stock exposes one to the potential loss of principal. There is also some downside due to the automatic conversion trigger possibility. Overall, margin of safety seems thin here.
Would Graham find this attractive at the current price? I lack the skills and knowledge to evaluate the intrinsic value of this issue, but I think it is currently overvalued. The terms and profit-sharing features are not amazing and so don't add to the margin of safety. That said, given BAC's scale, earnings power, history of actually paying the dividend, this issue might be attractive to him at the right price.
Q5
He places speculative fixed-income securities closer to stocks than to high-grade bonds, which is probably still true in current markets. It is interesting that he begins Part 3 by discussing a security whose 'form' is attractive but often unproductive, and closes by discussing the possible merits of one with an unattractive 'form'. It would seem that no security that met his requirements of an investment was automatically off limits. He didn't make rules based on the 'label' of the asset, but by whether it met his standard of an investment. If, after 'thorough analysis', Graham found a high-yield or junk bond that was priced at a deep enough discount to intrinsic value and backed by a business with enough earning power to protect principle and deliver an attractive return--in other words, he saw an actual investment--he went for it.
Q6
I do not have enough experience or knowledge to answer this question fully, but I believe the immense amount of information, ease of access, computing power and now the rise of AI can reduce mispricing. At the same time, humans being humans, fear and greed still exist and opportunities arise when the market overreacts. Perhaps some securities are more efficiently priced today, but inefficiencies driven by behavior will have a harder time disappearing.
Q7
"Energy Transfer LP, 9.25% Series I Preferred Units"
ET's earnings power is very strong, so payments are viable. Asset protection is minimal, since the preferred ranks behind a large senior debt load. The terms offer no profit-sharing features, but cumulative dividends add a small amount of protection. Callability leaves control with the issuer. I don't think this would be attractive to Graham, since it offers little real protection for the holder. The terms are issuer‑friendly, with minimal safeguards and very limited upside. Its only real strength is that ET’s strong earnings make the dividend payments viable in good times. I've run out of time to dig in more, but I'm curious if the current discount on this makes this more of an option of if there is a good reason for the discount.
Q8
"Analyze INPUT_BOND_HERE using Graham's framework in Part 3 of Security Analysis:
1. Provide earnings coverage ratio, stress test coverage, and asset protection metrics.
2. Describe the terms of the arrangement focusing on extent, closeness, and duration of any privileges. Do they actually add protection?
3. Identify any profit-sharing features and contractual realism. From a business health lens, are the features viable or speculative?
4. Deliver a final judgment on protection standards, terms, profit-sharing features, and overall classification as investment or speculation.
5. Given the current price and estimated intrinsic value, qualitatively assess how protective and profit-sharing features affect the margin of safety. Do they add or diminish it?
Use simple, clear language and provide concise, structured responses."
Agree, its a lot more nuanced that what we have learnt so far. Nice try Varun ! I too would thank Gary for providing this opportunity and have earmarked these chapters for a detailed read once the course completes.
I particularly like this phrase - "cherry on top of a badly baked cake"