Probably Not!

Go here to find out http://iresist.com/nbn/nbn15.html

-- Eagle Feather (EagleFeather8@yahoo.com), February 27, 2000

Answers

http://iresist.com/nbn/nbn15.html

LINK

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), February 27, 2000.

Last paragraph from the article above:The truth is, the securities you purchased and paid for with your hard earned money is collateral for the United Nations which is backed by the Federal Reserve System and it's associated agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund. Is it any wonder that the UN can operate year after year with increasing budgets, but without sufficient funds? The UN has nearly $11 Trillion of backing and reserves, thanks to millions of duped Americans. We are financing the New World Dis-Order with our stocks and bonds.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 27, 2000.

I take umbrage that we're "duped Americans". Exactly what can we do about it as long as the sheeple keep electing Clinton clones?

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), February 27, 2000.

They sure don't explain it very well, I don't get it. Worthless stock is worthless stock whether someone's name is printed on a certificate or not. Its still all a bunch of paper until its sold.

-- jth (jthres@hotmail.com), February 27, 2000.

The way I understand it, The DEPOSITORY TRUST Co in NYC holds all the actual stock certificates. When a transaction is made, the certificates "move around from one part of the building to another", but are always in the actual "possesion" of the DTC.

Very few people, even with the Merrill Lynches & Goldman Sacks crowd really understand this, or it's implications.

Since, somewhere in the fine print, the government is (at the very least) "involved" with your typical stock transaction, & you never really hold the certificates in your hand...it does make you wonder.

By the way, I've read the same thing about motor vehicle titles. Thr copy you have after you've paid off your car, is the "certificate" of title. The actual title is held in the bowels of one of your state governement offices.

Hell, while we're at it...read the title to your property if you "own" any. It probably was originally a grant from some king or president...And we all "know" we don't really own our land & homes, not in the same way we own a tv or a pc or a set of silverware....right?

-- INever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), February 27, 2000.

A key passage: The banks and brokers are merely custodians for their clients. By federal law (SEC), they cannot hold any assets in the customer's name. The assets must be held in the name of DTC's holding company, CEDE & Co. That's how DTC has more than $19 trillion dollars of assets in trust... or is it really in "trust" if the private Federal Reserve System is technically holding it in their "unknown" entity's name? Obviously, if stock and bond certificates you've purchased aren't in your name, then the "holder" (the Federal Reserve System) could theoretically refuse to surrender them back to you under a "national emergency" according to the Trading with the Enemy Act (as amended). Is this the collateral being held by the private Federal Reserve System to pay off the national debt owed to them by our federal government, first initiated by Lincoln's debt bonds of 1864?

-- INever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), February 27, 2000.

On the brighter side...

I just used some "worthless" paper money to leave my (lovely, for me) home, take a nice cruise, see some (much poorer?) Caribbean nations, and tomorrow I'll be fine-tuning some investments to make some more worthless money to take some more lovely vacations to see other countries that seem poorer to me, but must be richer since they don't have as much worthless financial instruments running around.

Before you post financial nonsense here, a trip to the third world should be requisite, IMHO, Mr Eagle. See, buying Long Island, or whatever it was, for a few bucks worth of trinkets is a good example of the value of a financial education--and I mean that sincerely; not as a slur of any kind.

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 27, 2000.

jth,

I think the article is saying that the DTC can sell what passes as new stock in "XYZ" company, but that this would raise absolutely no capital for "XYZ" company, and instead the funds would go right into the DTC's pocket. (Don't try this at home.) I wonder if Interested Spectator could shed light on this.

I'mSo, would you elaborate on why the article struck you as "financial nonsense."

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), February 27, 2000.

I read the whole article from start to finish. There may be some facts, but I know for sure that there is one mistake. Where the article stated that "safe-keeping" is broker speak for being in Cede & Co.'s name, that information is WRONG.

"Street name" is broker speak for being held at the DTC in the name of the nominee, Cede & Co. "Safe-keeping" is broker speak for having the certificate registered in the name of the client, and then held in the broker's vault.

Since this is obviously a factual mistake in the article, we need to examine why the mistake is there:

A) The author is ignorant of the term.
B) The author is fully aware that he is wrong, but has an agenda.

Conclusions:A) The author is not an expert and should be ignored.
B) The author is a liar and should be ignored.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 28, 2000.

J, Like you never make a mistake. Eagle Feather's link says you should hold your securities & certificates in your own hands. Then he explains that there could be some "funny" business going on, a la the new movie, "boiler room".

Just in case, i guess you should hold your own stock certificates, if "THEY" will let you...

-- INever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), February 28, 2000.

INever,

I do make mistakes sometimes. I didn't go into full detail on my previous post, as it was getting to be long.

It is of my opinion that the author of the article, not Eagle Feather, has an agenda. The particular agenda is for investors to get their stocks registered into their own names, thus taking them out of the pool of stock that is available to be borrowed to be sold short, thus creating a short squeeze which would send share prices higher.

As I stated previously, when you get your facts wrong, it opens your argument up to the criticism of being faulty through ignorance or faulty through deceit.

Of course, I could be mistaken in my opinion of the author's agenda. He could have a different agenda altogether. Perhaps by trying to tie the DTC to the NWO conspiracy theory, he is hoping to bring the market to a lower level, not a higher one. What he is advocating would send the market up, not down, however.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 28, 2000.

I think the author means to protect people who MIGHT lose their investments more easily IF there was a "situation" where having the securities paper in hand would be more BENEFICIAL than not...

-- INever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), February 28, 2000.

INever,

I will grant that this may be the author's ultimate intent. If it were, it would have been much more forthright for said author to just come right out and say this.

I happen to agree that if this country encounters a "situation" with the stock market, that it would be much better for an investor to have stock certificate in hand instead of a brokerage house's record of beneficial ownership.

That being said, what is the author dragging NWO/DTC conspiracy theories into his argument for?

I stand by my opinion that the author has some hidden agenda that he is trying to further under the guise of this argument.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 28, 2000.

No, that's the whole reason that so many companies are giving 401K plans instead of salary increases. They are gradually getting their employees to give all of their efforts directly back to the company, instead of allowing them to individually benefit from them. They want to completely own you, lock, stock, and barrel.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 28, 2000.

Hawk,

What are you talking about?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 28, 2000.

Sorry J, didn't realize you were mentally challenged.

The question was...

"Subject: Do You Really Own Your Stocks and Bonds? "

My answer is above. Good luck. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 28, 2000.

Hawk,

I'm not mentally challenged. Since your point was so far fetched, I just wanted clarification from you to make sure that I was interpreting it correctly.

If I am understanding your claim, 401-k plans somehow subjugate employees to corporations.

This would be because an employee gets the benefit of tax deferral and often a matching contribution, or because of the completely VOLUNTARY nature of contributing to a 401-k plan?

Please enlighten me with your explanation.

Or should we just plead with the big government to take more of our tax dollars so that we will all have plenty of Social(ist) Security benefits when we retire. :)

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 28, 2000.

J,

Apparently you've never heard of capital gains taxes. As far as 401K plans being voluntary, that may be true. When told that a 401K plan is included in a job offer, instead of a higher salary, you don't have to take the job if you don't want to, but since most companies are now including this as part of "your" compensation, it is getting more difficult to find positions where you can take your full salary home with you. I believe the long-term plan is to eventually eliminate currency and employees will simply be credited in value in the company, allowing them to use your income and making it more difficult for you to use it anywhere else.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 28, 2000.

Hawk,

I have not only heard about capital gains taxes, I actually understand what they are. I'm not sure that you do. You see, the top capital gains tax rate is 28%, while the top income tax rate is 39.6%. Anyway, it is a moot point to this discussion, because money that comes out of a 401-k plan is taxed as ordinary income, albeit at a later date (tax deferral).

Your fact about "most" companies offering 401-k plans doesn't bolster your point, in my opinion. It just means that because most companies offer 401-k plans, a company can't hope to compete for talent unless they are offering a 401-k plan as an ADDED benefit, not as an in lieu of benefit.

As far as what you believe the long-term plan is, that is one of the most paranoid ramblings that I've ever encountered. I'm sure the masses of employees at Clorox will be happy to be paid in bleach, so that they can try and figure out what the barter value is so that they can trade for food. Of course, the top executives at Clorox will be even happier to see their world class distribution system brought to a standstill by the reversion to a barter economy. You can't really be serious.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 28, 2000.