How to find out if a company has purchased government (or other) bonds?
This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).
I imagine that it wouldn't affect consumer debt significantly. Individuals are separate entities from their government like how stockholders are separate entities from a corporation. It would probably make it harder for the country to raise money through bonds. Who wants to purchase bonds from a country that won't pay you back? &gt;When a Business entity is so large and powerful its failure threatens the safety and well being of the nation it is based / present in.  Don't you think we should approach this issue from the other side and say that the government should be enforcing these restrictions pre-emptively? In other words, firms should be prevented from attaining 'too big to fail' status. It seems a bit controversial to me for a government to go in after the fact and forcefully break up a private company. Where was the government beforehand?  &gt;The government should be able to forcefully break up the company into smaller groups, or instate laws and regulations that promote competition and allow smaller businesses the ability to compete.  How is management distributed across the new entities? How is intellectual property distributed? It is easy to say we should break these companies up, but actually breaking them up is a nightmare. Each of the new companies will need a duplicate management structure, and invariably they will have to source outside resources to fill these roles. If one firm retains the more valuable management then it has an advantage over the other firm. The same goes for intellectual property, or any other rare or unique assets. Shareholders will not receive the same dividend yield from their shares because the two companies once split will lose out on some economies of scale. Should the government compensate shareholders for the lost value of their shares? If not, why not and how is this different from the government directly seizing assets of the shareholders even though they have not committed any crime? Bear in mind nearly every American citizen owns shares in these companies through their retirement funding and so any loss in market cap will affect normal people, not just rich investors.  &gt;National preservation.  Once again, I think we need to be asking a different question: how did these firms come to exist in the first place? Its one thing to turn around and plead to the government to break the firms up but it as the government itself which was asleep on the job and allowed the firm to reach this point anyway. Should we really trust the government (who let the firms come into being) to break them up again? "Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty.   The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the ""risk free"" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures.   I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly.   Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems." "At the most fundamental level, every market is comprised of buyers and selling trading securities. These buyers and sellers decide what and how to trade based on the probability of future events, as they see it. That's a simple statement, but an example demonstrates how complicated it can be. Picture a company that's about to announce earnings. Some investors/traders (from here on, ""agents"") will have purchased the company's stock a while ago, with the expectation that the company will have strong earnings and grow going forward. Other agents will have sold the stock short, bought put options, etc. with the expectation that the company won't do as well in the future. Still others may be unsure about the future of the company, but still expecting a lot of volatility around the earnings announcement, so they'll have bought/sold the stock, options, futures, etc. to take advantage of that volatility.  All of these various predictions, expectations, etc. factor into what agents are bidding and asking for the stock, its associated derivatives, and other securities, which in turn determines its price (along with overall economic factors, like the sector's performance, interest rates, etc.) It can be very difficult to determine exactly how markets are factoring in information about an event, though. Take the example in your question. The article states that if market expectations of higher interest rates tightened credit conditions... In this case, lenders could expect higher interest rates in the future, so they may be less willing to lend money now because they expect to earn a higher interest rate in the future. You could also see this reflected in bond prices, because since interest rates are inversely related to bond prices, higher interest rates could decrease the value of bond portfolios. This could lead agents to sell bonds now in order to lock in their profits, while other agents could wait to buy bonds because they expect to be able to purchase bonds with a higher rate in the future.  Furthermore, higher interest rates make taking out loans more expensive for individuals and businesses. This potential decline in investment could lead to decreased revenue/profits for businesses, which could in turn cause declines in the stock market. Agents expecting these declines could sell now in order to lock in their profits, buy derivatives to hedge against or ride out possible declines, etc. However, the current low interest rate environment makes it cheaper for businesses to obtain loans, which can in turn drive investment and lead to increases in the stock market. This is one criticism of the easy money/quantitative easing policies of the US Federal Reserve, i.e. the low interest rates are driving a bubble in the stock market. One quick example of how tricky this can be. The usual assumption is that positive economic news, e.g. low unemployment numbers, strong business/residential investment, etc. will lead to price increases in the stock market as more agents see growth in the future and buy accordingly. However, in the US, positive economic news has recently led to declines in the market because agents are worried that positive news will lead the Federal Reserve to taper/stop quantitative easing sooner rather than later, thus ending the low interest rate environment and possibly tampering growth.  Summary: In short, markets incorporate information about an event because the buyers and sellers trade securities based on the likelihood of that event, its possible effects, and the behavior of other buyers and sellers as they react to the same information. Information may lead agents to buy and sell in multiple markets, e.g. equity and fixed-income, different types of derivatives, etc. which can in turn affect prices and yields throughout numerous markets." Tesla has over $8B in depreciated PP&amp;E on the books, and long-term debt and capital leases approx. $7B prior to the debt issuance.  Depending on the priority of claim on the $1.5B of new issuance, taking a position on the bonds might have some decent security on liquidated Tesla assets. The only reason I can think of is that the bonds are bought automatically by some investment pools, groups or institutions. That will stop very quickly once the management finds some other place to put the money. What I ended up doing was finding where each ticker of Novo was registered (what exchange), then individually looking up the foreign taxation rules of the containing country.  Luckily, most companies only have a few tickers so this wasn't too hard in the end. When individuals take on a loan, it's often in the form of a mortgage, right? And companies take out business loans all the time, only they might be a regular bank loan and not in the form of buying bonds, more similar to when an individual takes a loan.  I was seeing through what process a firm would have to go through in order to get funding via the bond process.