Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
34f3f3f
ParticipantHas anyone ever doubted that WaMu was next. If one source has been consistently accurate, it’s been the grape vine, and given all the speculation, I can’t understand why anyone would still have an account there. With three times the deposit holdings of FDIC reserves, I’m sure the FDIC will be relieved if it is bailed out. But if it not, and the FDIC needs to cover depositors, and goes cap in hand to the treasury, the tax payer still ends up having to foot the bill.
ParticipantHas anyone ever doubted that WaMu was next. If one source has been consistently accurate, it’s been the grape vine, and given all the speculation, I can’t understand why anyone would still have an account there. With three times the deposit holdings of FDIC reserves, I’m sure the FDIC will be relieved if it is bailed out. But if it not, and the FDIC needs to cover depositors, and goes cap in hand to the treasury, the tax payer still ends up having to foot the bill.
ParticipantHas anyone ever doubted that WaMu was next. If one source has been consistently accurate, it’s been the grape vine, and given all the speculation, I can’t understand why anyone would still have an account there. With three times the deposit holdings of FDIC reserves, I’m sure the FDIC will be relieved if it is bailed out. But if it not, and the FDIC needs to cover depositors, and goes cap in hand to the treasury, the tax payer still ends up having to foot the bill.
ParticipantHas anyone ever doubted that WaMu was next. If one source has been consistently accurate, it’s been the grape vine, and given all the speculation, I can’t understand why anyone would still have an account there. With three times the deposit holdings of FDIC reserves, I’m sure the FDIC will be relieved if it is bailed out. But if it not, and the FDIC needs to cover depositors, and goes cap in hand to the treasury, the tax payer still ends up having to foot the bill.
ParticipantI echo about ratings. There is little faith in these anymore, and yes Wells Fargo has been under the spotlight, although not so much as WaMu et al. I did the rounds regarding FDIC, and the answers you get depends not just on which bank you ask, but amazingly some branches have their own versions. Stick with the bigger, main branches and ask senior staff. The general rule with FDIC is that the $100k is per account holder, so if it’s a joint account then the limit will be $200. You can also add a “beneficiary” to the account which has to be a close relative. This behaves like a trust, and is only payable on death, but has the effect of doubling up the FDIC cover as well. Not all banks do this. Living Trusts, retirement plans, are also covered, and I believe the latter has a $250k ceiling.
There is a scheme where dozens of smaller banks have clubbed together, to spread the risk for large cash holdings. The advantage is that you hold just one account with the custodian, and they do all the work for you. The name of the scheme alludes me at this time. In principle, it looks OK, but it is not a Federally backed or regulated scheme, as far as I am aware, and so there may be some unquantifiable risks. However, all banks in the scheme have FDIC insurance.
On a final note, I have read posts here that some people have met with resistance when trying to move funds. This is your money, banks got us into this mess, and I would deal sharply with any bank personnel that gives you a hard time. I also wouldn’t preclude moving funds around as often as you like until you have found your peace of mind.
ParticipantI echo about ratings. There is little faith in these anymore, and yes Wells Fargo has been under the spotlight, although not so much as WaMu et al. I did the rounds regarding FDIC, and the answers you get depends not just on which bank you ask, but amazingly some branches have their own versions. Stick with the bigger, main branches and ask senior staff. The general rule with FDIC is that the $100k is per account holder, so if it’s a joint account then the limit will be $200. You can also add a “beneficiary” to the account which has to be a close relative. This behaves like a trust, and is only payable on death, but has the effect of doubling up the FDIC cover as well. Not all banks do this. Living Trusts, retirement plans, are also covered, and I believe the latter has a $250k ceiling.
There is a scheme where dozens of smaller banks have clubbed together, to spread the risk for large cash holdings. The advantage is that you hold just one account with the custodian, and they do all the work for you. The name of the scheme alludes me at this time. In principle, it looks OK, but it is not a Federally backed or regulated scheme, as far as I am aware, and so there may be some unquantifiable risks. However, all banks in the scheme have FDIC insurance.
On a final note, I have read posts here that some people have met with resistance when trying to move funds. This is your money, banks got us into this mess, and I would deal sharply with any bank personnel that gives you a hard time. I also wouldn’t preclude moving funds around as often as you like until you have found your peace of mind.
ParticipantI echo about ratings. There is little faith in these anymore, and yes Wells Fargo has been under the spotlight, although not so much as WaMu et al. I did the rounds regarding FDIC, and the answers you get depends not just on which bank you ask, but amazingly some branches have their own versions. Stick with the bigger, main branches and ask senior staff. The general rule with FDIC is that the $100k is per account holder, so if it’s a joint account then the limit will be $200. You can also add a “beneficiary” to the account which has to be a close relative. This behaves like a trust, and is only payable on death, but has the effect of doubling up the FDIC cover as well. Not all banks do this. Living Trusts, retirement plans, are also covered, and I believe the latter has a $250k ceiling.
There is a scheme where dozens of smaller banks have clubbed together, to spread the risk for large cash holdings. The advantage is that you hold just one account with the custodian, and they do all the work for you. The name of the scheme alludes me at this time. In principle, it looks OK, but it is not a Federally backed or regulated scheme, as far as I am aware, and so there may be some unquantifiable risks. However, all banks in the scheme have FDIC insurance.
On a final note, I have read posts here that some people have met with resistance when trying to move funds. This is your money, banks got us into this mess, and I would deal sharply with any bank personnel that gives you a hard time. I also wouldn’t preclude moving funds around as often as you like until you have found your peace of mind.
ParticipantI echo about ratings. There is little faith in these anymore, and yes Wells Fargo has been under the spotlight, although not so much as WaMu et al. I did the rounds regarding FDIC, and the answers you get depends not just on which bank you ask, but amazingly some branches have their own versions. Stick with the bigger, main branches and ask senior staff. The general rule with FDIC is that the $100k is per account holder, so if it’s a joint account then the limit will be $200. You can also add a “beneficiary” to the account which has to be a close relative. This behaves like a trust, and is only payable on death, but has the effect of doubling up the FDIC cover as well. Not all banks do this. Living Trusts, retirement plans, are also covered, and I believe the latter has a $250k ceiling.
There is a scheme where dozens of smaller banks have clubbed together, to spread the risk for large cash holdings. The advantage is that you hold just one account with the custodian, and they do all the work for you. The name of the scheme alludes me at this time. In principle, it looks OK, but it is not a Federally backed or regulated scheme, as far as I am aware, and so there may be some unquantifiable risks. However, all banks in the scheme have FDIC insurance.
On a final note, I have read posts here that some people have met with resistance when trying to move funds. This is your money, banks got us into this mess, and I would deal sharply with any bank personnel that gives you a hard time. I also wouldn’t preclude moving funds around as often as you like until you have found your peace of mind.
ParticipantI echo about ratings. There is little faith in these anymore, and yes Wells Fargo has been under the spotlight, although not so much as WaMu et al. I did the rounds regarding FDIC, and the answers you get depends not just on which bank you ask, but amazingly some branches have their own versions. Stick with the bigger, main branches and ask senior staff. The general rule with FDIC is that the $100k is per account holder, so if it’s a joint account then the limit will be $200. You can also add a “beneficiary” to the account which has to be a close relative. This behaves like a trust, and is only payable on death, but has the effect of doubling up the FDIC cover as well. Not all banks do this. Living Trusts, retirement plans, are also covered, and I believe the latter has a $250k ceiling.
There is a scheme where dozens of smaller banks have clubbed together, to spread the risk for large cash holdings. The advantage is that you hold just one account with the custodian, and they do all the work for you. The name of the scheme alludes me at this time. In principle, it looks OK, but it is not a Federally backed or regulated scheme, as far as I am aware, and so there may be some unquantifiable risks. However, all banks in the scheme have FDIC insurance.
On a final note, I have read posts here that some people have met with resistance when trying to move funds. This is your money, banks got us into this mess, and I would deal sharply with any bank personnel that gives you a hard time. I also wouldn’t preclude moving funds around as often as you like until you have found your peace of mind.
ParticipantAs I understand it, Bernanke was at pains to explain to Congress, that insolvency is not the sole issue. There is a crisis of confidence. So the plan is also a laxative for current retentive lending. What’s actually being discussed behind closed doors right now is anyone’s guess, but one would hope alternatives such as the above get a look in. However, I think the time bomb is ticking and the pressure is on for a quick fix. It doesn’t seem fair, or right, and never again, but it looks like it’s going to happen, and history will judge if our leaders deserve the confidence entrusted in them. No, I’m not going to say be careful who you vote for. There I just said, darn it!
ParticipantAs I understand it, Bernanke was at pains to explain to Congress, that insolvency is not the sole issue. There is a crisis of confidence. So the plan is also a laxative for current retentive lending. What’s actually being discussed behind closed doors right now is anyone’s guess, but one would hope alternatives such as the above get a look in. However, I think the time bomb is ticking and the pressure is on for a quick fix. It doesn’t seem fair, or right, and never again, but it looks like it’s going to happen, and history will judge if our leaders deserve the confidence entrusted in them. No, I’m not going to say be careful who you vote for. There I just said, darn it!
ParticipantAs I understand it, Bernanke was at pains to explain to Congress, that insolvency is not the sole issue. There is a crisis of confidence. So the plan is also a laxative for current retentive lending. What’s actually being discussed behind closed doors right now is anyone’s guess, but one would hope alternatives such as the above get a look in. However, I think the time bomb is ticking and the pressure is on for a quick fix. It doesn’t seem fair, or right, and never again, but it looks like it’s going to happen, and history will judge if our leaders deserve the confidence entrusted in them. No, I’m not going to say be careful who you vote for. There I just said, darn it!
ParticipantAs I understand it, Bernanke was at pains to explain to Congress, that insolvency is not the sole issue. There is a crisis of confidence. So the plan is also a laxative for current retentive lending. What’s actually being discussed behind closed doors right now is anyone’s guess, but one would hope alternatives such as the above get a look in. However, I think the time bomb is ticking and the pressure is on for a quick fix. It doesn’t seem fair, or right, and never again, but it looks like it’s going to happen, and history will judge if our leaders deserve the confidence entrusted in them. No, I’m not going to say be careful who you vote for. There I just said, darn it!
ParticipantAs I understand it, Bernanke was at pains to explain to Congress, that insolvency is not the sole issue. There is a crisis of confidence. So the plan is also a laxative for current retentive lending. What’s actually being discussed behind closed doors right now is anyone’s guess, but one would hope alternatives such as the above get a look in. However, I think the time bomb is ticking and the pressure is on for a quick fix. It doesn’t seem fair, or right, and never again, but it looks like it’s going to happen, and history will judge if our leaders deserve the confidence entrusted in them. No, I’m not going to say be careful who you vote for. There I just said, darn it!
-
AuthorPosts
