A bearer share company can still hold title to assets anonymously. This can be used to hide ownership of properties, can be used to hide trade secrets, trade patterns, discourage creditors, and discourage the creation of people that wish to become creditors.
People don't become creditors when they don't covet your money, and it doesn't always matter to the owners if the government can technically find out who owns something.
When privacy is desired, there are levels of privacy.
When bearer shares are 'immobile' and automatically registered with the local government, Private actors will still never know who owns them and state actors such as enforcement agencies of that government and foreign governments will never know who owns them until there is a CRIMINAL sanction being levied (distinct from a strictly monetary civil sanction). So for owning intellectual property, real estate, yachts, and other businesses, bearer shares still have their place in simply assigning the title to that property.
Title/holding companies don't need bank accounts. So the "problem" of not being able to open a bank account isn't really relevant. But the footnote is that you only need 1 single banker to break that pattern, and some banks really just don't care as they will never strain their relationship with the local government and international community.
For the second half of this decade and onwards, nobody really needs banks to do business, especially smaller operators, given that cryptocurrency is liquid enough and functions better for cross-border commerce, leaving it up to the final recipient to exchange it for unsanitary government paper currency in their local jurisdiction. So this revitalizes the use of bearer shares if so desired.
I would add that bearer shares are mostly preferential formality anyway, as there are plenty of ways to have anonymous fractional ownership of property, so your observations are correct.