What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of implementing David Rogers' great taking proposal?
Executive summary
David Rogers Webb’s “Great Taking” argues that modern practices — dematerialization of securities, security entitlement rules, and banking/clearing arrangements — enable large financial institutions to effectively seize private ownership of stocks, bonds and other securities; Webb promotes measures such as state-level UCC changes, holding physical assets and cryptocurrencies in cold storage, and land ownership as defensive steps [1] [2] [3]. Coverage in podcasts, a documentary and niche websites shows a mix of alarmed advocacy and popular diffusion, but mainstream regulatory rebuttals or formal empirical validation are not present in the provided material [4] [5] [2] [1].
1. What Webb’s proposal says — a concise portrait
David Rogers Webb frames the problem as legal and technical: dematerialization of securities, “security entitlement” doctrines and harmonized collateral/clearing systems let custodians, clearinghouses and banks use customer securities as collateral or otherwise strip effective ownership rights, producing what he calls “The Great Taking.” His remedies include legislative changes at the state level (updates to the Uniform Commercial Code), pushing for restored property rights to financial securities, and personal defensive steps such as holding physical precious metals, bitcoin in cold storage, profitable private businesses and debt-free land [1] [2] [3].
2. Potential benefits — restoring perceived property rights and resilience
If Webb’s diagnosis is correct and implemented changes actually reassert direct property rights over securities, proponents claim it could increase investor control, reduce systemic counterparty risk, and limit banks’ ability to rehypothecate or leverage customer holdings without explicit consent; that, in turn, could protect retail holders in crises and reduce opaque collateral chains [1] [2]. Supporters featured in media suggest diversification into physical assets and cold-storage crypto as practical resilience measures against the scenario Webb describes [3].
3. Potential drawbacks — legal, market and practical frictions
Rewriting property rules or restricting market-standard custody/clearing practices risks fragmenting the plumbing of modern finance: market liquidity, efficient settlement, margining and centralized clearing rely on standardized entitlements and rehypothecation/ collateral mechanics. Interventions could raise transaction costs, reduce liquidity, complicate cross-border settlement and make markets less efficient — consequences not fully quantified in Webb’s accessible materials [1]. Additionally, advising broad shifts into physical metals, private businesses and land can expose investors to concentration risk, illiquidity and storage/ownership burdens [3].
4. Evidence and mainstream response — what the available reporting shows (and doesn’t)
The sources supplied are Webb’s book, podcasts and a documentary that advocate his thesis and defensive tactics; there is popular and niche uptake (podcast episodes, documentary, blogs) but no mainstream regulatory analyses or academic rebuttals in the materials provided. Available sources do not mention formal refutations by SEC/clearinghouses nor empirical studies validating the scale of Webb’s claimed seizure mechanics [4] [2] [1] [6]. That absence matters: the argument hinges on legal interpretations and chain-of-title practices that typically draw technical, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction scrutiny not present in these sources.
5. Conflicting perspectives and motivations to watch for
Advocates present Webb as a former hedge-fund professional turned whistleblower; his work is distributed through podcasts, a documentary and independent publishing channels, which can amplify a sense of urgency and conspiracy [2] [4] [1]. Critics — not found in the provided set — would likely point to the operational necessity of custodial and clearing arrangements and existing regulatory safeguards. The sources do show partisan and fringe amplification (blog posts urging hoarding and distrust), suggesting some messaging aims to mobilize distrust and private protective measures rather than pursue narrow legal reform alone [6] [3].
6. Practical takeaways and policy trade-offs for lawmakers and investors
For policymakers: consider measured reviews of custody, rehypothecation and clearing law with input from exchanges, custodians and consumer advocates; balance investor property protections against liquidity, settlement efficiency and systemic stability — a trade-off Webb emphasizes but the sources offer no multi-stakeholder economic modeling to guide specifics [1]. For investors: Webb’s recommended hedges (physical metals, bitcoin cold storage, debt-free land, private businesses) may add diversification against the particular risk he describes but carry their own liquidity, custody and concentration risks, and the sources do not show these as universal solutions [3].
7. Bottom line and reporting limits
Webb’s “Great Taking” is a coherent, alarm-focused thesis with practical prescriptions that have attracted podcasts and a documentary audience; the materials provided document the claims and suggested defensive moves, but do not contain mainstream regulatory responses, empirical studies or cross-jurisdictional legal analyses that would confirm the scale or inevitability of the risk he describes. Readers should treat the proposal as a call for legal review and debate rather than an established, uncontested fact given the reporting available here [2] [1] [4].