“Convertible -debt/note/bond/debentures” which of these are the same or different?
They all basically mean the same thing - a type of debt than can be exchanged for (converted into) equity at some point. It's only the mechanics that can be different. A convertible bond is structured just like a regular bond - it (usually) pays periodic interest and has a face value that's due at maturity. The difference is that the bond holder has the option to exchange the debt for equity at some point during the life of the bond.  There can be restrictions on when that conversion is possible, and they typically define a quantity of equity (number of shares) that the bond can be converted into.  If the market price of the shares goes above a price that would make the shares more valuable than the bond, it's in the best interest of the bond holder to convert. A convertible note is typically used to describe a kind of startup financing that does not pay interest or have a face value that's redeemed, but instead is redeemed for equity as part of a later financing round.  Rather than specifying a specific number of shares, the bond holder receives equity at a certain discount to the rest of the market. So they both are debt instruments that can turn into equity investments, just through different mechanisms. A debenture is a fancy word for unsecured debt, and convertible debt could be used to described either structure above, so those terms could mean either type of structure.
Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000.  If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares.  The price in the market is unimportant.  Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense.  It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction.  It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares.  Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased.  Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price.  Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege.   I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense.  It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2.  The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment. "In theory, the term of the bond does not affect the priority.  It does not matter whether a ""Junior Subordinated Debenture"" is due in one year or sixty, it is still lower priority than a ""Secured Note"".  On the other hand, if the ""Secured Note"" is secured by something that is not worth as much as the note, the excess is an unsecured debt. In practice, the term of the bond has two effects: Short term debt holders are more likely to get out just before the company goes broke.  Sometimes their efforts to get out are exactly what causes the company to go broke!  (""Commercial paper"" is even more fickle than banks.) All other things being equal, and depending on the terms of the loan, some bonds get priority over bonds of the same type that are issued later.  For example, your first mortgage usually takes precedence over your second mortgage." "From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity   stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company   that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims   such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be   withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental   to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders,   usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a   profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called   retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a   dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash   (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a   dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of   further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer   to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the   holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to   pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a   later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable   at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often   the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be   transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer   agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on   the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under ""Employee Stock Purchase Plans"" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt   (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10   years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified   number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of   equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like   features.  It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by   early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter   market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by   companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential." A debenture is a security document. This means that the bond is secured over assets. Under English law, you can issue bonds which, if defaulted upon, you can enforce your security against the issuer (i.e. the company), which means you can attempt to get your money back by getting hold of the company's assets.   As for a floating charge, I'll first explain what a fixed charge is. Say you're a bank (a lender) and you lend £1000 to X. You take security by way of a fixed charge over X's photocopy machines. X is unable to dispose of the machines without the lender's consent. This means that if X cannot pay up the loan, you can enforce security by taking possession of the photocopy machines, sell them, and hopefully get enough money back to cover the default.  A floating charge works the same way but over assets which fluctuate, e.g. X's stock of potatoes. X sells potatoes to supermarkets all the time so you can't just take a fixed charge over it for practical reasons, you can't just ask the lender each time you want to sell a potato. When an event of default occurs, i.e. you don't pay back the loan or breach a condition of the loan agreement, the floating charge crystallises, and becomes a fixed charge, thus enabling the lender to sell the potatoes to get their money back.  Random examples, but makes sense?  Source; future English solicitor. "From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when   comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings   ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies   that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between   equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then   superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity   investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not   have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not   sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the   market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception   of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued.   Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and   costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare   returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation   (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for   the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the   capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the   outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy   to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making   a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective   estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the   market value of these components. For example, in many professional   valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the   numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should,   therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used   to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and   including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting   period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions   (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or   significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the   reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be   calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital   employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic   multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the   weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is   determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and   debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under ""Technical Considerations"" there and you will see that the ""access to data on cash and debts"" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum." "The credit and debit terms here is, talking from bank's point of view (shouldn't be a surprise, banks are never known to look at things from the customers' POV ;)).  In accounting, a liability (loans, owners capital etc) is a credit balance and asset (cash, buildings and such) is a debit balance.  Your account is a liability to the bank (in accounting parlance that is because they owe you every single penny that is there in your account, btw, in literal parlance too if you really make their life harder ;))  So when the bank accepts money from you, they need to increase their asset (cash) which they will debit (higher debit balance for asset means more assets), and at the same time they also have to account for the added liability by ""crediting"" the deposited money into your account. So when bank says they have credited your account, it means you have more money in your account. Now, if you transfer money from your account to another, or make a payment through your account, your account will be debited and the beneficiary account will be credited(bank's liability towards you reduces) More or less what everyone else said here... but hey, I could also take a swipe at banks ;))" Perfect super clear, thank you /u/xlct2  So it is like you buy a bond for $X, start getting interest, sell bond for $X :)  I was thinking there could be a possibility of a bond working like a loan from a bank, that you going paying as time goes by :D Sure thing -  Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply &amp; demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest.   For example (completely made up numbers):  - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today.   In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5%       (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5%  Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco.  Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe.   If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to  *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this.  So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%.      (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9%  And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful.