Can zero-coupon bonds go down in price?
"Of course it can. This is a time value of money calculation. If I knew the maturity date, or current yield to maturity I'd be able to calculate the other number and advise how much rates need to rise to cause the value to drop from 18 to 17. For a 10 year bond, a rise today of .1% will cause the bond to drop about 1% in value. This is a back of napkin calculation, finance calculators offer precision. edit - when I calculate present value with 34 years to go, and 5.832% yield to maturity, I get $14.55. At 5.932, the value drops to $14.09, a drop of 3.1%.  Edit - Geo asked me to show calculations. Here it goes - A) The simplest way to calculate present value for a zero coupon bond is to take the rate 5.832%, convert it to 1.05832 and divide into the face value, $100. I offer this as the ""four function calculator"" approach, so one enters $100 divided by 1.05832 and repeat for the number of years left. A bit of precision is lost if there's a fractional year involved, but it's close. The bid/ask will be wider than this error introduced.  B) Next - If you've never read my open declaration of love for my Texas Instruments BA-35 calculator, here it is, again. One enters N=34 (for the years) FV = 100, Rate = 5.832, and then CPT PV. It will give the result, $14.56.  C) Here is how to do it in Excel -  The numbers in lines 1-3 are self evident, the equation in cell B4 is =-PV(B3/100,B1,0,B2) - please note there are tiny differences in the way to calculate in excel vs a calculator. Excel wants the rate to be .05832, so I divided by 100 in the equation cell.  That's the best 3 ways I know to calculate present value. Geo, if you've not noticed, the time value of money is near and dear to me. It comes into play for bonds, mortgages, and many aspect of investing. The equations get more complex if there are payments each year, but both the BA-35 and excel are up to it." Certainly, yes, a zero coupon bond can go down in price. If interest rates rise before your bond matures, the price of the bond will go down – and the longer to maturity, the more it will tend to drop.  Depending on when you bought and how much interest rates rise, you can incur a capital loss. The bond is guaranteed to be worth a certain amount at maturity as long as the issuer hasn't defaulted, but before maturity the market price of the bond will fluctuate, primarily based on interest rate movements.  In fact, zero coupon bonds are even more interest-rate-sensitive than regular bonds (which have periodic coupon interest payments.) Let's say today you buy the bond issued by StateX at 18$. Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that StateX is going towards default (if it happens it won't give you back not even the 18$ you invested). You (and others that bought the same bond like you) will get scared and try to sell the bond, but a potential buyer won't buy it for 18$ anymore they will risk maximum couple of bucks, therefor the price of your bond tomorrow is worth 2$ and not 18 anymore. Bond prices (even zero coupon ones) do fluctuate like shares, but with less turbolence (i.e. on the same period of time, ups and downs are smaller in percentage compared to shares) EDIT: Geo asked in the comment below what happens to the bond the FED rises the interest. It' very similar to what I explained above. Let's say today you buy the bond just issued by US treasury at 50$. Today the FED rewards money at 2%, and the bond you bought promised you a reward of 2% per year for 10 years (even if it's zero coupon, it will give you almost the same reward of one with coupons, the only difference is that it will give you all the money back at once, that is when the bond expires). Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that FED decided to rise the interest rates, and now on it lends money rewarding a wonderful 4% to investors. US treasury will also have to issue bonds at 4%. You can obviously keep your bond until expiration (and unless US goes default you will get back all your money until the last cent), but if you decide to sell your bond, you will find out that people won't be willing to pay 50$ anymore because on the market they can now buy the same type of bond (for the same period of time, 10 years) that give them 4% per year and not a poor 2% like yours. So people will be willing to pay maximum 40$ for your bond or less.
So how often do investors really lose money? The short answer is, every day. Let's first examine your assumptions: If the price of the share gets lower, the investor can just wait until   it gets higher. What are the chances that it won't forever, or for   years? There are many stocks whose price goes down and then down further and then to zero. The most apparent example is, of course, Enron. The stock went from about $90 per share to zero in about 18 months. For it to have been sold at $90, obviously, someone had to buy it. Almost no matter where they sold it, they lost money. If they didn't sell it, when the stock was worthless, they lost money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#/media/File:EnronStockPriceAugust2000toJanuary2001.svg There are more modern examples of companies that are declining in a rapidly changing market. For example, Sears Holdings is getting beat down by Amazon and many other on-line retailers. I suspect that if you buy it today and wait for it to go higher, you will be disappointed. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASHLD&ei=E8_fWIjWGsSGmAGx7b_IAw The more common way to lose money is to either not have a plan or not stick to the plan. Disciplined investors typically plan to buy quality stocks at a fair price and hold them long enough for increasing sales and profits to bring the stock price up. If, later, he hears a bit of bad news about his stock and decides to sell out of panic or fear and become a trader instead of keeping to the plan to remain a disciplined investor, he is likely to lose money. He will lose because no-one can predict accurately that a stock is going down and will never recover; nor can he predict accurately when a stock is going up and will never falter. The chance of bankruptcy (especially for huge companies like Apple) is   really low, as I see it, but I may be wrong. Thousands of people lost billions of dollars thinking that about Enron, too. I too believe Apple is a fine stock with excellent prospects, but technology changes and markets change. Twenty or thirty years from now, it may be a different case. Okay let's try this a different way. Completely forget about what the bond is with. Here is how a bond works:   * You get paid interest for holding the bond (5% interest means a coupon of $50 assuming one coupon a year)    * At the end of the bond term (maturity) you get paid $1000.     In your scenario, you get paid the $50 as an interest payment and the $1000 final payment.    If you only had the bond for one year, your total payment will be $1050.     Try drawing a timeline to visualise it a bit better The real value of a share of stock is the current cash value of all dividends the owner will receive, plus the current cash value of the final liquidation if any.  Since people with different needs may judge the current cash value of an income stream differently, there would be a market basis for people to buy and sell stocks even if everyone could predict all future payouts perfectly. If shareholders knew that a company wouldn't pay any dividends until it was liquidated in the year 2066, whereupon it would pay $2000/share, then each share would in 2016 effectively be a fifty-year zero-coupon bond with a $2000 maturity value.  While some investors would be willing to trade in such an instrument, the amount of money a company could charge for such an instrument would be far lower than the money it could charge for one with payouts that were more evenly distributed through time. Since the founders of most companies want their companies to be around for a long time, that would mean that shareholders would have no expectation of their shares ever yielding anything of value within any foreseeable timeframe.  Even those who would be more interested in share-price appreciation than dividends wouldn't be able to see share prices rise if there wasn't any likelihood of the stock being bought by someone who wanted the dividends. Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there. This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it. Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof.  No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping.  Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing.  This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond.  Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions.  Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond.  You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries.  If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value.   But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk. On first glance it sounds to good to be true.   From what I understand bridge loans are for people waiting on other loans. In this case I would presume a housing developer would take this loan if something were to go wrong and their first choice of funding went wrong. Not anything wrong with that in and of itself but the coupon is way, way too big not to draw attention.   Examine the financial statements of the credit institutions and the companies they're giving credit to would be the only solution.   The terms of the bond should be dictated by all information available, therefore if the return is this lucrative then there must be a large degree of risk associated with it. Adding a couple more assumptions, I'd compute about $18.23 would be that pay out in 2018.  This is computed by taking the Current Portfolio's Holdings par values and dividing by the outstanding shares(92987/5100 for those wanting specific figures used). Now, for those assumptions: Something to keep in mind is that bonds can valued higher than their face value if the coupon is higher than other issues given the same risk.  If you have 2 bonds maturing in 3 years of the same face value and same risk categories though one is paying 5% and the other is paying 10% then it may be that the 5% sells at a discount to bring the yield up some while the other sells at a premium to bring the yield down.  Thus, you could have bonds worth more before they mature that will eventually lose this capital appreciation.