Abstract English legal scholarship has seen a debate on the nature of securities. One school
of thought classifies them as property. The other school of thought classifies them as
obligations. The distinction is of interest because certain rules of law are said to apply to
assets that are classified as property, but do not apply to obligations. It has also been argued
that the rule in Hunter v Moss, which makes it possible for property rights to arise when
securities form part of a bulk, finds an explanation in the proprietary nature of securities.