I am getting soft in my old age having laughed at "Fairytale of Philadelphia" twice. (It was done with clear and obvious affection for the original though.)
Your point is true and valid. However, and just to be clear, bearer bonds are not recent; they have been around for 100s of years. The primary benefit has always been anonymity, thus your shady quality, but there is a notable downside to that anonymity: finders keepers, losers weepers. Which renders bearer bonds as akin to crypto - but also [store] gift cards, cash, etc.
Frequent have been the financial epochs in which bond buyers lost trust in custodial agents - banks, mostly - so they wanted to retain ownership of the bonds, and the clippable coupons for the bonds' interest payments, just in case the bank failed. Think, most recently, of the 1930s and the 1870s/1880s. Had bearer bonds been available to Americans, I am confident demand for them would have soared during and after 2007-2009. Back in 2008, when the DOW was melting down 1000 points each next session, I suggested strongly that people should take _daily_ screen grabs of their bank and brokerage accounts to prove they owned what they claimed in case of systemic failure. It was touch-and-go back then. (Were bearer bonds available today, I would own them happily, should a breakdown of the custodial system now in place occur, as seems possible.)
Anyway, lots of arguments for bearer bonds, lots of arguments against them.
Realizes just now that completely forgot to see what Dr. Jeff came up with at WFMU today
I am getting soft in my old age having laughed at "Fairytale of Philadelphia" twice. (It was done with clear and obvious affection for the original though.)
Spouse is counterprogramming with "Maoz Tzur"
“Both the Nakatomi Corporation and the Japanese-American CEO, Joseph Yoshinobu Takagi, are portrayed as responsible stakeholders.“
Weren’t negotiable bearers bonds shady af?
"Weren’t negotiable bearers bonds shady af?"
Your point is true and valid. However, and just to be clear, bearer bonds are not recent; they have been around for 100s of years. The primary benefit has always been anonymity, thus your shady quality, but there is a notable downside to that anonymity: finders keepers, losers weepers. Which renders bearer bonds as akin to crypto - but also [store] gift cards, cash, etc.
Frequent have been the financial epochs in which bond buyers lost trust in custodial agents - banks, mostly - so they wanted to retain ownership of the bonds, and the clippable coupons for the bonds' interest payments, just in case the bank failed. Think, most recently, of the 1930s and the 1870s/1880s. Had bearer bonds been available to Americans, I am confident demand for them would have soared during and after 2007-2009. Back in 2008, when the DOW was melting down 1000 points each next session, I suggested strongly that people should take _daily_ screen grabs of their bank and brokerage accounts to prove they owned what they claimed in case of systemic failure. It was touch-and-go back then. (Were bearer bonds available today, I would own them happily, should a breakdown of the custodial system now in place occur, as seems possible.)
Anyway, lots of arguments for bearer bonds, lots of arguments against them.