Everything I've read indicates that the bonds are almost certainly fakes, and that there's rarely any legitimate reason to physically move even 1% that much cash. The linked article doesn't really dispute that, with it's talk of spy novelists.

It should not take a week to determine the certificates' authenticity. So something weird is going on.

Are US bonds numbered/recorded? If not, a fake could conceivably be perfect.

Of course they are numbered, just like any $1 bill. They are not registered as far as I can tell; they are bearer bonds (just like a $1 bill).

Now say you have several trillion dollars outstanding to many people who are not quite your friends, nor very interested in rummaging through their books to help you, revealing their hands in a very high-stakes game. Then some other government turns up a ridiculous amount of bonds designed to be anonymous (just like a... you get the picture). Also, a third government has some claim because it crossed her border.

That is a classic "international incident". It will take some time to resolve. Lots of favors will be traded. Joe Public may never know the details.

In the film Die Hard, there are 'anonymous/untraceable bearer bonds', so maybe.

From the U.S. Treasury website (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/markets/redemption.html):

"Bonds that are lost, stolen, mutilated or destroyed, can be replaced free of charge as long as it can be established by the Bureau of the Public Debt that the bonds are still outstanding. To assure that bonds can be traced, owners should keep records of bond serial numbers, issue dates, [etc.]"

I think we can do better than appeal to a fictional dramatization as authority.

Unregistered bearer bonds are definitely real. That's what we're talking about.

The difference between an unregistered bearer bond and other types of bonds is that the bearer bond is not registered to a particular individual, but instead guarantees payment for the bearer of the bond. Other bonds are registered with the social security number of the bond recipient.

However all bonds have serial numbers, regardless of whether they are registered. This is how the government verifies the validity of the outstanding debt guaranteed by the bond. Otherwise, what is to stop some counterfeiter from manufacturing fake bonds and claiming them?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. That bonds have serial numbers, much like dollar bills, has little relevance to the story at hand.

That they're fake and the Japanese agents seemed almost intent on getting caught indicates a cloak and dagger agenda.

Some entity designed this incident to profit from dollar/treasury short positions, or to sow doubt for political reasons. It's difficult to come to another conclusion.

Fakes or not, this isn't a good development for the U.S. I could easily see a country creating fake bonds and getting 'caught' with the purpose of casting doubt on the legitimacy of the real bonds held by other investors.

More than likely this will be resolved in some smoky backroom someplace and we won't ever hear the real conclusion of the matter.

What do $1 billion "Kennedy bonds" (mentioned in the story) look like?

i imagine that counterfeiting a 500M / 1B bond is much different that doing so for a $100 bill. How many institutions can actually accept such a bond? I am actually surprised that they exist in paper form at all.

And quoting Karl Denninger, founder of mcs.net.

This site broke the story a day earlier than Bloomberg.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/143462-strange-inconsistenci...

"The larger story at hand is, who are the players (nations) involved, and what was the intention of this likely counterfeiting operation? Maybe the future will reveal the answers to these questions. But maybe not."

(via http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027593.html)

SeekingAlpha "broke" the story? Doesn't that mean they reported it first? It was on HN last week:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=653680

It's also odd that this story is being upvoted so much, given that the previous link 1) was reporting it when it was still actual news, and 2) has the same information and a fraction of the innuendo.

I imagine it's being upvoted because it's bloomberg. When I saw this story elsewhere last week, I assumed that it would turn out that it was a hoax, rumor, or otherwise exaggerated. Since it's now in bloomberg, that seems unlikely.

I meant to say, "Some blogger was able to spot the bigger story a full day before Bloomberg."