The trade
In the third week of March 2020, with credit markets seizing, McDonald's ($MCD) sold 4.200% notes due 2050 at 98.855. This page follows $10,000 into that bond against $10,000 into McDonald's stock at the same day's close of $162.98, income kept as cash on both sides with no reinvestment.
Both legs are marked 31 July 2026.
The result
| Bond | Stock | |
|---|---|---|
| Price at entry | 98.855 | $162.98 |
| Price at the mark | 76.43 | $270.64 |
| Income collected | $25.25 per $100 | $38.60 per share |
| $10,000 becomes | about $10,430 | about $18,970 |
| Total return | about +4% | about +89% |
The equity won, and it won comfortably. Over six years the shareholder made roughly twenty times what the bondholder made.
The part that gets read backwards
The bond's price fell from 98.855 to 76.43. The obvious reading is that the market got more worried about McDonald's.
It did the opposite. McDonald's credit spread TIGHTENED, from roughly 285 basis points at issue to roughly 82 at the mark. In the market's own pricing, McDonald's is a materially better credit now than it was in the panic.
What destroyed the price was the risk-free rate underneath it. The 30-year Treasury went from 1.418% to 5.27%. A thirty-year bond with a fixed 4.200% coupon cannot survive that, no matter how good the borrower is.
Why that matters beyond McDonald's
This is the error this series exists to correct. A long corporate bond trading far below par is routinely written up as a signal that the issuer is in trouble. Sometimes it is. Here it plainly was not: the issuer's own risk premium halved and then halved again while the bond fell more than twenty points.
The sequence to check, in order, is the Treasury curve first and the spread second. If the curve explains the move, there is no credit story to tell.
What this does not say
It does not say stocks beat bonds. It says that on this entry date, for this issuer, over this window, the stock won and the bond's loss had an identifiable cause that was not the company. A different entry date gives a different answer, and elsewhere in this series a different mark date has reversed a result outright.
