Meta's First Ever Bond Against Meta's Stock

$META 2062

Meta Platforms 4.650% notes due 2062

$META

Meta Platforms, common stock

$10,000 into Meta's first bond in August 2022, or $10,000 into $META stock the same day. Which did better?

Meta had never borrowed before August 2022. The bondholder is down about 13%. The shareholder is up about 349%. And unlike McDonald's, Meta's own credit spread widened.

Figures both legs marked Friday 25 September 2026. Published Sep 28, 2026. Educational commentary, not investment advice.

In short

•Meta had never issued a bond until August 2022. The longest tranche of that first deal was the 4.650% of 2062, CUSIP 30303M8K1.

•$10,000 into that bond at issue is worth about $8,700 today, down about 13%. The same $10,000 into $META stock is worth about $44,900, up about 349%. The stock won five times over.

•Bought instead at the start of this year, the stock still won: about $11,400 against about $8,740.

•Unlike McDonald's, Meta's credit SPREAD widened, and did more of 2026's damage to the bond than Treasuries did. Two bonds, two opposite causes, same falling price.

Side by side

Metric	$META 2062	$META
Bought at issue, 9 Aug 2022: $10,000 becomes	about $8,700	about $44,900
Bought at issue: total return	about -13.0%	about +349%
Bought 31 Dec 2025: $10,000 becomes	about $8,740	about $11,400
Bought 31 Dec 2025: total return	about -12.6%	about +14.0%
Bond price at the markA FINRA TRACE last trade, which is a single print rather than a close	67.43 at 7.19%	n/a
What moved the bondThe opposite of McDonald's. Meta's own risk premium did more of 2026's damage than the Treasury curve did	spread WIDENED	n/a

Highlighted cells mark the side each line favours. $META 2062 leads 0, $META leads 4, and 2 favour neither. This is not a score, and the side leading more lines is not the better investment.

The trade

Meta Platforms ($META) had never sold a bond before August 2022. When it did, the longest tranche was the 4.650% of 15 August 2062, CUSIP 30303M8K1.

This page follows $10,000 into that bond at issue against $10,000 into Meta stock the same day, and then repeats the exercise from 31 December 2025 to see whether the answer depends on when you bought.

Both legs on one date, and here it mattered enormously

Both legs are marked Friday 25 September 2026.

This is the piece where that discipline earned its keep. An earlier mark of 31 July caught $META two days after an 8% earnings drop, and on that date the bond was beating the stock year to date. The stock then rallied 35%. Mixing a July bond mark with a September stock mark would have produced the single worst error available in this comparison, and every individual number in it would still have been true.

The result, two entry dates

Bought at the bond's issue, 9 Aug 2022	Bond	Stock
$10,000 becomes	about $8,700	about $44,900
Total return	about -13.0%	about +349%

Bought 31 Dec 2025	Bond	Stock
$10,000 becomes	about $8,740	about $11,400
Total return	about -12.6%	about +14.0%

The stock won both times. On the issue-date entry it won five times over.

The difference from McDonald's

Both bonds fell. The causes are not the same, and that is the reason to read these two pages together.

McDonald's bond was destroyed by the Treasury long end while its own credit spread tightened by about 200 basis points. The issuer got safer and the bond still collapsed.

Meta's bond fell with its spread widening, and in 2026 the spread did more of the damage than Treasuries did. Part of Meta's bond loss genuinely is the market demanding more to lend to Meta.

So two long corporate bonds, two similar-looking price declines, two opposite explanations. A falling bond price by itself does not tell you which one you are holding.

What this does not say

It does not say Meta's credit is bad, only that its risk premium rose over this window while McDonald's fell. It does not forecast either security. And it rests on the entry dates shown: elsewhere in this series a different mark date has reversed a result outright.

What the gap is pricing

The stock won on both entry dates, and on the first one it was not close. But the useful comparison is against McDonald's rather than against Meta's own equity. Both bonds fell. McDonald's fell because Treasuries repriced while its credit improved. Meta's fell with its own spread widening, so part of that loss genuinely is the market asking more to lend to Meta. Identical-looking price charts, opposite causes. A falling bond price on its own tells you nothing about which of the two you are looking at, which is why the spread has to be checked before any credit conclusion is drawn.

This says what the market is charging for, not what anyone should buy. No position is implied.