5 ms·
The article says that a national bond fund may have fronted the endowment without turning .org into a for-profit. What does this mean?
by zapita 7y ago
The article says that a national bond fund may have fronted the endowment without turning .org into a for-profit. What does this mean?
- lalaland1125 7y agoThey could have sold bonds (raised money via debt) as an alternative to selling .org. They probably would have gotten a good yield considering the stability of the .org revenue stream.
- zapita 7y agoBut would buyers of national bonds consider buying debt from a non-government entity? Would they be willing and able to model the investment without a good understanding of the Internet industry?
- freddie_mercury 7y agoThey buy trillions of bonds from GSEs every day. This wouldn't be any different. Agency debt is a well understood thing.
- zapita 7y agoThanks. I find this topic fascinating, even though I know nothing about it. Do you have any recommendations for reading material to learn more?
- Reelin 7y agoYou might try (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporatebond.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporatebond.asp) for an overview.
- lancewiggs 7y agoIt's a steady and safe stream of income, and the bonds themselves would be rated as safe enough. After that it's all about the interest rate, and in today's market those are really low.
- slantedview 7y agoEven the selling of bonds would have been unnecessary. They had a rock solid revenue stream. This deal wasn't about ISOC raising money, it was about looting a public asset for private profit.