Two shares!

In my paleoquotology post a couple weeks ago, I blegged for info on how I might discover what MCI shares from 1986 may have grown (and re-shrunk) to today. Meanwhile, I sent my wife's ancient stock certificates off to be converted into their modern equivalents.

If only were as easy as the bank had implied. The form and the certificates have returned, with further instructions, most of which relate to the forms my wife needs to produce in order to have herself take sole ownership of the property (as her mother was "custodian" in 1986). We'll have to send back the original form and certificates, plus a signature guarantee from a particular type of bank, plus a W-9 form, plus a certified birth certificate (for cryin' out loud), and (finally) a cover letter. Now, the bank knew from the get-go that this was a custodial account. So I don't see why they didn't mention in the original correspondence that all this may be necessary.

But here's a better question. It says right on the stock certificates that they were issued 14 April 1986. The date's stamped on there, along with my wife's name. So given that my wife's ownership of the stock is indisputably over eighteen years old, how is it that the bank thinks it possible that my wife herself is not eighteen - and thus requires the certified birth certificate, et. al.? What sort of bizarre, twin-paradox circumstance are they envisioning and legally safeguarding themselves against?

Bunch of overly-officious, bureaucratic nincompoops...