Talk:Government bond

message: Calling all government bonds risk-free seems incorrect to me. In quantitative financial research, the term risk-free is appropriate for short term government debt, being Treasury bills in the U.S. This is so because you may expect the short term government bills to be repaid. Contributed   09:10, 17 October 2005 by User:JanRog
A few things : 
#the only credit instruments that are actually 100% risk-free are those that have in point of fact been fully repaid; any live debt, ie one with a non-negative maturity, is risky;
#there is such a thing as the term structure of interest rates. Using the same rate for all maturities is wide off the mark, except in the ultra-rare case of a flat yield curve;
#in each currency, the best approximation one has for risk free interest rates rate for non-negative maturities comes from the more liquid government bonds, provided the said government has not over-issued; as governments enjoy fiscal power, their credit in their own currency is in fact quite good;
#using only one, "risk free" or not, interest rate for all maturities should be seen more as an indication of a quantitative model's limitations than as an indication that other interest rates are risky.
Htournyol 16:02, 21 October 2005 Goverement bonds suck
Monetization? Monetisation? government buying its own bonds?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.165.71 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading to call it risk free

message: I have removed the "or simply print more money" from the paragraph about government debt, since governments do not print money, central banks do. This is not the same thing. KennethJ (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bonds in reality are issued by the privately owned central banks (FED, Bank of England, Central bank of europe etc. all are owned by private individuals). In fact the central banks, a bunch of bankers organised into a cartel, they LEND money to your governments which then are sold in form of certificates, and if the money is not paid back then that is your public debt... basically, bonds are strictly related and controlled by central banks.The amount of bonds sold or bought by the government would help the central banks to keep an eye on the amount/number of printed money in circulation (see monetary policy). This is how THEY the private bankers control or enslave your government,the politicians, the corporate,the shareholders, you and the entire financial and monetary system of the world. Bond = is the bondage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.120.102 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you in denial , everyone else knows the FED is privatised.  It has shareholders so its not hte GVT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.116.155 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Still nonsense.  The Federal Reserve Bank is "privatized" (although not exactly a "corporation", as each bank has one vote on what would be "shareholder" votes in a real corporation), but the Federal Reserve Board is a government agency.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: [to 85.2.120.120] Makes Perfectly good sense to me.  The Guy below above is a total Cock-head .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.233.72 (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it makes sense to you.  You two are the same person.  And you should learn the protocol for discussing things on a talk page, WP:TALK.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about printing money 

message: According to some sources, a sovereign bond is a government bond. According to other sources it's a bond issued by a government in a currency other than its own.
Anyone care to weigh in?
Pnm (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereign bond vs. Government bond 

message: Whether these terms are synonymous or not, addressing the two in a single article would improve the coverage. Inflation is a topic they have in common (both articles mention already). Currency risk is mentioned in Sovereign bond and is relevant to Government bond but not written about.
Managing much-needed references will be easier with one article than two.
Keeping all the issues in front of editors at once may also reduce the likelihood of United States or Western bias.
Pnm (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently done, although not all the pointers have been fixed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge: [[Sovereign bond]] into [[Government bond]] 

message: The UK section now has references but the rest of the article is still unreferenced. Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I did not see any way to salvage these sections added last month. They are very specifically about US national and subnational government bonds, subjects that have their own articles. The claims (for example, that government bonds are necessarily low-risk) do not generalize. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of the "Advantages" section, Special:Diff/894240719, appears to be promotional, non-neutral and badly referenced. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of Government Bonds / Advantages of Government Bonds