A fixed nominal receipt still has a payment date. Ignoring time and funding can distort comparisons between otherwise similar contract prices.

What the primary record establishes

TreasuryDirect explains that separating a Treasury security’s principal and interest produces individual zero-coupon securities, each with a single payment at its own maturity. This is an example of identifying a dated cash flow, not a claim that a binary contract has Treasury credit quality. US TreasuryDirect — STRIPS and individual future payments ↗

For WFN’s purely illustrative model, a certain 100-unit payment due in one year has a present value of 100 divided by 1.05, or about 95.24, at an assumed annual discount rate of 5%. The rate is hypothetical; the calculation is not a current yield quote.

What the distinction changes

A contingent payment adds an outcome question to that timing question. It is therefore incomplete to compare a contract price directly with its maximum future receipt and call the difference profit. The customer may receive zero, and cash may remain unavailable until settlement.

Two instruments with the same headline maximum can also have different payment dates, collateral treatment and funding needs. A price difference cannot automatically be assigned to a different event probability without checking those other terms.

What to check before drawing a conclusion

Put purchase time, observation time and actual payment time on the same cash-flow timeline. Record fees and the source of any discount or funding assumption. Do not substitute a Treasury rate for a product’s counterparty and liquidity risks without justification.

This model explains why timing belongs in valuation; it does not identify a fair price or an opportunity. WFN makes no claim that a customer can borrow, reinvest or exit at the assumed rate. A defensible comparison should state each of those assumptions explicitly.