Issuer Quotes

For Cities, the presence of good leadership is a plus for the G in ESG, and it makes the city a better bond issuer.

Bond issuers should have good systems in place for the management of proceeds.

Bond issuers that prioritize ESG standards may improve their access to financing while lowering their cost of capital.

Authorities usually invite and support detrimental conduct in insidious ways that minimize personal responsibility for what is happening. Moreover, the intended purpose of sanctioned destructiveness is usually disguised so that neither issuers nor perpetrators regard their actions as censurable. When reprehensible practices are publicized, they are officially dismissed as only isolated incidents arising through misunderstanding of what had, in fact, been authorized. Efforts are made to limit any blame to subordinates, who are portrayed as misguided or overzealous. Investigators who go searching for "smoking guns" display naivete about the surreptitious manner in which culpable behavior is sanctioned and executed. Generally one finds mazy devices of nonresponsibility rather than smoking guns.

If money is in essence transferable credit—rather than a commodity medium of exchange, as the academic economists insisted—then fundamentally different factors explain the economy’s demand for it. Meeting demand for commodities is a simple matter of ensuring a sufficient supply on the market. When it comes to transferable credit, however, volume alone is not enough: the creditworthiness of the issuer and the liquidity of the liability come into play. And both these factors are determined not technologically or physically but by the general levels of trust and confidence.

Visa’s Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit—and debit-card transactions processed over the Visa network. Visa extends the same protections and benefits to its debit cards as it does to credit cards—including the ability for credit-card issuers to resolve merchant disputes on the cardholder’s behalf if goods were defective or weren’t received, you were overcharged, or for other reasons.

If the market were a disciplined calculator of value based exclusively on company fundamentals, the price of a security wouldn’t fluctuate much more than the issuer’s current earnings and the outlook for earnings in the future. In fact, the price generally should fluctuate less than earnings, since quarter-to-quarter changes in earnings often even out in the long run and, besides, don’t necessarily reflect actual changes in the company’s long-term potential.

The operation of a market economy is dependent on prices, and prices, to be accurate, are dependent on a common medium of exchange, which reflects the relative scarcity of different goods. If this is easy money, the ability of its issuer to constantly increase its quantity will prevent it from accurately reflecting opportunity costs. Every unpredictable change in the quantity of money would distort its role as a measure of interpersonal value and a conduit for economic information.

Ernestine Warner was working with the same rough information available to traders like Eisman. This was insane: The arbiter of the value of the bonds lacked access to relevant information about the bonds. "When we asked her why", said Vinny, she said "The issuers won't give it to us". That's when i lost it. "You need to demand to get it!" She looked at us like, We can't do that. We were like, "Who is in charge here? You're the grown-up. You're the cop! Tell them the fucking give it to you!!!" Eisman concluded that "S&P was worried that if they demanded the data from Wall Street, Wall Street would just go to Moody's for their ratings.

From a monetary competition perspective, keeping gold reserves is a perfectly rational decision. Keeping reserves in foreign governments' easy money only will cause the value of the country's currency to devalue along with the reserve currencies, while the seigniorage accrues to the issuer of the reserve currency, not the nation's central bank. Further, should central banks sell all their gold holdings (estimated at around 20% of global gold stockpiles), the most likely impact is that gold, being highly prized for its industrial and aesthetic uses, would be bought up very quickly with little depreciation of its price and the central banks would be left without any gold reserves.

The problem was that the issuers of CDSs could issue them with no collateral other than their “full faith and credit,” meaning that if their bets lost they might not have the money to pay.

MMT recognizes that finance is not a limited resource. It is manufactured and created in the act of spending. In the modern world, the exclusive monopoly to issue the currency endows governments with unparalleled spending power. For MMT, that the issuer can spend without technical constraints is a rather trivial observation. What MMT stresses is that taxes and borrowing cannot pre-fund the issuer of the currency, as the currency must be provided before it can be used for tax collections or bond purchases. The substantive question for MMT then is how to deploy this spending power for achieving the two central macroeconomic goals: full employment and price stability.

This standardized set of smart contract instructions meant that tokens could retain a common, consistent format for both the ICO and post-ICO trading. The tokens did not need their own blockchain and mining community to maintain them. Instead, ERC20 tokens traded on top of Ethereum. They were generated by an Ethereum-validated smart contract that kept track of the issuance and exchanges by token holders. These tokens, like bitcoin and all cryptocurrencies, still needed the immutable ledger of a blockchain truth machine to maintain their provable status as non-replicable digital assets. But because of the ERC-20 solution, they didn’t need to develop their own blockchain with all the independent computing power that would require. Instead, Ethereum’s existing computing network would do the validation for them. This low-cost solution to the double-spending challenge launched a factory of ICOs as issuers found an easy way to tap a global investing community.

Just last year, Mrs. Clinton claimed that as secretary of state she didn’t carry a work phone. It was too cumbersome and inconvenient for her to carry two phones. She didn’t have room for them. Then we learned she carried an iPhone and BlackBerry, neither government issued nor encrypted. Then we learned she carried an iPad and an iPad mini. But she claimed she didn’t do email. Then we learned she had email—on a private server. But then she claimed her email was for personal correspondence, yoga, and wedding planning. Then we learned her email contained government business as well—lots of it. Listen, nobody transmits classified material on the Internet! Nobody! You transmit classified material via a closed-circuit, in-house intranet or even physically via courier. You can’t even photocopy classified data except on a machine specially designed for hush-hush material, and even then you still require permission from whatever agency and issuer the document originated. So the only way for that material to be transmitted over an email is for her or someone in her office to dictate, Photoshop, or white-out the classified material in question, to remove any letterhead, or to duplicate the material by rewriting it in an email. Government email accounts are never allowed to accept emails from nongovernment email accounts. We’re supposed to delete them right away. Exceptions exist for communications with private contractors, but those exceptions are built into the system. I repeat: To duplicate classified material without permission or to send it over an unsecured channel is completely illegal. That’s why every government agency employs burn bags, safes, and special folders for anything marked Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. People have lost their careers and gone to jail for far less. Yet Hillary Clinton transmitted classified material by the figurative ton. No one else can operate like that in government. But she takes her normal shortcuts and continues to lie about it. There is no greater example of double standards in leadership than First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Is it too inconvenient or cumbersome for her to follow the same rules that agents in the field have to follow? Maybe it would make morale too high? Clinton’s behavior harkens to the old motto: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Perhaps the most famous, if flawed, oracle of the Federal Reserve, former chairman Alan Greenspan, knew that money was something that not only central bankers could create. In a speech in 1996, just as the Cypherpunks were pushing forward with their experiments, Greenspan said that he imagined that the technological revolution could bring back the potential for private money and that it might actually be a good thing: “We could envisage proposals in the near future for issuers of electronic payment obligations, such as stored-value cards or ‘digital cash,’ to set up specialized issuing corporations with strong balance sheets and public credit ratings.

merchants and card issuers in the U.S. each year. While mobile payments account for 14 percent of transactions among merchants who accept them, they make up 21 percent of fraud cases,

We have been drafting Cryptocurrency Attorney offerings for issuers for nearly as long as the term “cryptocurrency” has been in use.

As markets mature over time, there is more regulation on what information asset issuers must provide and by whom that information must be verified and audited. With cryptoassets, however, these standards are not yet in place.

MBS are bonds that use pools of mortgages for collateral. The bond issuer buys up thousands of mortgages, and then repackages them into bonds. As payments are made on the mortgages, the bond issuer passes those payments through to the bondholders (minus their fee, of course). That’s why MBS are considered to be “pass-through securities.

In the upcoming months I would learn more about DPG’s history, but early on I learned about one derivatives trade that I think exemplifies the group’s business. This particular trade, and its acronym, were among the group’s most infamous early inventions, although it still is popular among certain investors. The trade is called PERLS. PERLS stands for Principal Exchange Rate Linked Security, so named because the trade’s principal repayment is linked to various foreign exchange rates, such as British pounds or German marks. PERLS look like bonds and smell like bonds. In fact, they are bonds—an extremely odd type of bond, however, because they behave like leveraged bets on foreign exchange rates. They are issued by reputable companies (DuPont, General Electric Credit) and U.S. government agencies (Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae), but instead of promising to repay the investor’s principal at maturity, the issuers promise to repay the principal amount multiplied by some formula linked to various foreign currencies. For example, if you paid $100 for a normal bond, you would expect to receive interest and to be repaid $100 at maturity, and in most cases you would be right. But if you paid $100 for PERLS and expected to receive $100 at maturity, in most cases you would be wrong. Very wrong. In fact, if you bought PERLS and expected to receive exactly your principal at maturity, you either did not understand what you were buying, or you were a fool. PERLS are a kind of bond called a structured note, which is simply a custom-designed bond. Structured notes are among the derivatives that have caused the most problems for buyers. If you own a structured note, instead of receiving a fixed coupon and principal, your coupon or principal—or both—may be adjusted by one or more complex formulas.

Once the Bermuda regulatory details were under control, Morgan Stanley would need to arrange with at least one of the ratings agencies to receive an investment-grade rating for the new Bermuda company’s bonds. There are two primary ratings agencies, Moody’s Investor Services and Standard and Poor’s, and numerous secondary agencies. I always found Moody’s analysts to be more intelligent and creative than analysts at any other agency. However, when you really needed a rating, there was only one choice: Standard and Poor’s, known as S&P. It might surprise you that private entities can pay for their credit ratings. Most people assume that credit rating agencies are principled and accurate, and that S&P in particular is above reproach because it is at least partially accountable to the federal government. Certainly S&P and Moody’s Investors Services are two of the premiere ratings agencies in the United States, and the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates each as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organization. However, it’s also true that although ratings agencies once provided information about particular debt issues without charging the issuer of the debt, today—and for the past two decades—such agencies have been collecting credit rating fees from issuers, simply for telling investors what credit rating they assign that issuer’s debt. A rating isn’t cheap, either. Fees typically range from $30,000 on up, more for large and complicated deals such as PLUS Notes. Because S&P also had to preserve its reputation, for some deals you simply could not buy a rating. For a while these Bermuda bonds appeared to be one of those deals, and it looked as if Morgan Stanley might not be able to obtain an investment-grade rating at any price.

Cash is a debt instrument issued by a sovereign government, and all debt instruments are subject to the creditworthiness of their issuers, so is cash.

A one-year CD will typically charge an early withdrawal penalty of three months or so of interest. For a five-year CD, the penalty might be six to eight months interest. Every CD issuer has its own policy. Be sure you know the rules before you invest. A portfolio of CDs with different maturities can be a smart strategy to increase your overall yield, while reducing the chances you will need to make an early withdrawal. For instance you could invest equal amounts in five different CDs: one-year, two-year, three-year, four-year, and five-year. That way you have some money maturing every year. When the one-year CD matures, invest it in a new five-year. Your two-year CD now has just one more year to go, so it becomes your one-year CD. When it matures, invest that in a five-year CD too. Keep doing this and eventually you will have a portfolio of five-year CDs, with one maturing every year. That will pay you more interest than if you kept all of your money in a one-year CD that you had to reinvest annually. I think the CD ladder can be a terrific option for some of your cash, but if you are aiming for a two-year cash reserve, I would still keep at least six months of that in a simple savings account where

Rehypothecation is not risky in large Repo markets like U.S. Treasurys, but it becomes a potential problem in small securities markets. Think of small corporate or municipal bond issues. What happens if one of the counterparties defaults? Think of it like a break in the collateral chain. When one party defaults, the two counterparties on either side must liquidate their securities. One counterparty sells the collateral and the other one buys the collateral, but not necessarily to each other. For highly liquid and large issue securities, like U.S. Treasurys, this is easy. Problems arise when the collateral is non-fungible, a private-label issuer, or a small issue size. In these cases, when the entity in the middle goes bust, it’s hard for the original seller to get back their securities.

As nineteenth-century economist David Ricardo noted, “neither a State nor a bank ever has had the unrestricted power of issuing paper money, without abusing that power; in all States, therefore, the issue of paper money ought to be under some check and control; and none seems so proper as that of subjecting the issuers of paper money to the obligation of paying their notes, either in gold coin or in bullion.”4 Throughout the Victorian era, the gold standard imposed the needed discipline on politicians.

As you can see, the rise and fall of opportunities in the market for distressed debt stems from the interaction of other cycles: in the economy, investor psychology, risk attitudes and the credit market. The economic cycle influences investor psychology, company profitability and the incidence of default. The cycle in psychology contributes to fluctuations in credit market conditions and the desire of investors to lend, buy and sell. The cycle in attitudes toward risk facilitates the issuance of weak bonds at the top and denies capital for refinancing at the bottom. The credit cycle has a profound effect on the availability of refinancing and the degree to which would-be debt issuers are subjected to stringent credit standards. Hopefully it’s clear that multiple underlying cycles have effects on the distressed debt market that are far from discrete and isolated. As I wrote earlier, each of these cycles rises and falls; each causes the others to rise and fall; and each is affected by the rise and fall of others. But the result of all of this is a dramatic cycle in distressed debt opportunities, and one that is subject to explanation.

Obviously, the issuer of the dollar can have all the dollars it could possibly want. “The government doesn’t want dollars,” Mosler explained. “It wants something else.” “What does it want?” I asked. “It wants to provision itself,” he replied. “The tax isn’t there to raise money. It’s there to get people working and producing things for the government.” “What kinds of things?” I asked. “A military, a court system, public parks, hospitals, roads, bridges. That kind of stuff.” To get the population to do all that work, the government imposes taxes, fees, fines, or other obligations. The tax is there to create a demand for the government’s currency. Before anyone can pay the tax, someone has to do the work to earn the currency.

Gold bullion standard. Notes (bits of paper) are redeemable or convertible at the issuer (usually the central bank) for gold—usually in the form of gold bullion (this means bars of gold of certain standard weights and purities). This is called a gold bullion standard. This is representative money.

Non-convertible gold bullion standard. This is where the issuer declares that their currency is worth a certain amount of gold, but doesn’t allow you to redeem your money for gold. This is starting to blur the lines between representative and fiat money.

The reason the loanable funds story is not in sync with reality is that it asks us to treat the federal government like a currency user. When we reject this naïve lens, we see that countries like the US aren’t dependent on borrowing to fund themselves, nor are they at the mercy of private investors when they do sell bonds.17 Uncle Sam is not a beggar, who must go hat in hand, in search of funding to support his desired spending. He’s a muscular currency issuer! He can choose to borrow (or not), and Congress can always decide what rate of interest it will pay on any bonds it decides to offer. That’s not true of all countries, but it is true of those with monetary sovereignty.

There are no tyrants among men; there are only tyrannies, and the mother of tyrannies is money monopoly . . . Not money, but a false money system is the root of all evil . . . If money is to fulfil its function as the liberator of exchange, it must be protected from pollution by false issuers, and it must also be free to draw its supply from all worthy sources. The broader its base, the higher can be its apex and the greater its service to mankind. E. C. Riegel 103

How To Purchase Digital Securities On The BrightCOIN Platform In this post, we go over the steps an investor must complete to invest in an STO on the BrightCOIN platform. Almost all security token offerings in the US are launched under Reg. D, 506c, Reg. S, or Reg. A+. And as everyone knows by now, every contributor must not only pass KYC and AML screens but also must be accredited investors. So what does a contributor see when he clicks the “Invest Now” button on an STO landing page? You’re immediately taken to the issuer’s branded page to create an account. Once your email is verified, you’re presented with a screen that asks if you’re investing as an individual or an entity, such as an IRA or irrevocable trust, for example. You’ll then provide the information to complete the KYC and AML scans. If you registered as an individual, then you must upload the appropriate investor accreditation documents that will be verified. Alternatively, if you registered as an entity, you must upload the appropriate documents for verification as well. You’ll then be informed that your documentation has been submitted for verification. The verification process typically takes 24-48 hours to complete. Next, you’ll be asked to complete a questionnaire detailing the conditions of the offering. You must acknowledge that you’ve read them all individually then read and acknowledge terms of service and privacy policy. On the next page, you’ll be presented with a form to make your contribution. Choose the currency you wish to make your contribution with, in addition to the amount you’ll contribute. Your contribution will automatically calculate the number of tokens you’ll receive for your contribution based on the current exchange rate. Then, you’ll be presented with the issuer’s subscription agreement. Read it carefully, agree with the terms and sign. The only step left is to confirm your token purchase. That’s it! You’ve completed the whole token purchase process and will receive your tokens at the close of the STO. The content (Blogs, FAQs, News) posted on BrightCOIN may contain incorrect information, always get professional advice. Neither BrightCOIN nor any of its directors, officers, employees, representatives, affiliates or agents shall have any liability whatsoever arising from any error or incompleteness of fact or opinion in, or lack of care in the preparation of, any of the materials posted on this website. BrightCOIN does not provide legal, accounting or tax advice. Any representation or implication to the contrary is expressly disclaimed.

BOND: A debt security in which the authorized issuer owes the holders a debt and is obliged to repay the principal and interest at a later date, termed maturity. ENTREPRENEUR: Someone who creates a system to offer a product or service in order to obtain a profit. Entrepreneurs are willing to accept a level of risk to pursue opportunity and are viewed as fundamentally important in the capitalistic society. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: A statement of your income, expenses, assets, and liabilities. Your “report card” when you leave school and what your banker wants to see before lending you money. STOCK: The capital raised by a corporation through the distribution of shares.

But however determined this programme of domestic consolidation, following the Reichstag election results of May 1924, not even the votes of the SPD were sufficient to carry the constitutional amendments necessary to ratify the Dawes Plan, which included an international mortgage on the Reichsbahn. Over a quarter of the German electorate had voted for the far right - 19 per cent for the DNVP, almost 7 per cent for Hitler's NSDAP. Almost 13 per cent had opted for the Communists. The two-thirds majority would have to include at least some deputies from the DNVP, intransigent foes of the Versailles Treaty and the progenitors of the 'stab in the back' legend. So concerned were the foreign powers that the American ambassador Alanson Houghton intervened directly in German party politics, summoning leading figures in the DNVP to explain bluntly that if they rejected the Dawes Plan, it would be one hundred years before America ever assisted Germany again. Under huge pressure from their business backers, on 29 August 1924 enough DNVP members defected to the government side to ratify the plan. In exchange, the Reich government offered a sop to the nationalist community by formally renouncing its acceptance of the war-guilt clause of the Versailles Treaty. Nevertheless, on 10 October 1924 Jack Morgan bit his tongue and signed the loan agreement that committed his bank along with major financial interests in London, Paris and even Brussels to the 800-million Goldmarks loan. The loan was to apply the salve of business common sense to the wounds left by the war. And it was certainly an attractive proposition. The issuers of the Dawes Loan paid only 87 cents on the dollar for their bonds. They were to be redeemed with a 5 per cent premium. For the 800 million Reichsmarks it received, Germany would service bonds with a face value of 1.027 billion. But if Morgan's were bewildered by the role they had been forced to play, this speaks to the eerie quality of the reconfiguration of international politics in 1924. The Labour government that hosted the final negotiations in London was the first socialist government elected to preside over the most important capitalist centre of the old world, supposedly committed by its party manifesto of 1919 to a radical platform of nationalization and social transformation. And yet in the name of 'peace' and 'prosperity' it was working hand in glove with an avowedly conservative adminstration in Washington and the Bank of England to satisfy the demands of American investors, in the process imposing a damaging financial settlement on a radical reforming government in France, to the benefit of a German Republic, which was at the time ruled by a coalition dominated by the once notorious annexationist, but now reformed Gustav Stresemann. 'Depoliticization' is a euphemistic way of describing this tableau of mutual evisceration. Certainly, it had been no plan of Wilson's New Freedom to raise Morgan's to such heights. In fact, even Morgan's did not want to own the terms of the Dawes Settlement. Whereas Wilson had invoked public opinion as the final authority, this was now represented by the 'investing' public, for whom the bankers, as financial advisors, were merely the spokesmen. But if a collective humbling of the European political class had been what lay behind Wilson's call for a 'peace without victory' eight years earlier, one can't help thinking that the Dawes Plan and the London Conference of 1924 must have had him chuckling in his freshly dug grave. It was a peace. There were certainly no European victors.