[quote]rainjack wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
The FDIC will never have to. As long as people think there money is safe with a high insured amount then the bank runs will NOT occur. Thereby preventing many bank failures that would only happen if people panic and take their money out.
Nothing can help banks that are insolvent and they have always failed throughout history. What we don’t want are failures due to lack of liquidity and this helps that.
The bankers I talked to said the ONLY thing in the bail out that would help them would be the raising of the FDIC limits. Not because anything financial, but because it will help put people more at ease.
[/quote]
I don’t get this provision. How many people have more than 100k in a single FDIC insured account? It can’t be that many people. If they do, they should just move it rather than changing the whole FDIC. Am I missing something? Does this cover something other than individual accounts?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
rainjack wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
The FDIC will never have to. As long as people think there money is safe with a high insured amount then the bank runs will NOT occur. Thereby preventing many bank failures that would only happen if people panic and take their money out.
Nothing can help banks that are insolvent and they have always failed throughout history. What we don’t want are failures due to lack of liquidity and this helps that.
The bankers I talked to said the ONLY thing in the bail out that would help them would be the raising of the FDIC limits. Not because anything financial, but because it will help put people more at ease.
I don’t get this provision. How many people have more than 100k in a single FDIC insured account? It can’t be that many people. If they do, they should just move it rather than changing the whole FDIC. Am I missing something? Does this cover something other than individual accounts?
[/quote]
From what I was told, there are a good number of customers that have accounts that are right at the $100K mark. It is not unusual for business accounts to have at least that much in the bank.
But the notion that you are over insured is very calming to little old widow ladies.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:
rainjack wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
The FDIC will never have to. As long as people think there money is safe with a high insured amount then the bank runs will NOT occur. Thereby preventing many bank failures that would only happen if people panic and take their money out.
Nothing can help banks that are insolvent and they have always failed throughout history. What we don’t want are failures due to lack of liquidity and this helps that.
The bankers I talked to said the ONLY thing in the bail out that would help them would be the raising of the FDIC limits. Not because anything financial, but because it will help put people more at ease.
I don’t get this provision. How many people have more than 100k in a single FDIC insured account? It can’t be that many people. If they do, they should just move it rather than changing the whole FDIC. Am I missing something? Does this cover something other than individual accounts?
From what I was told, there are a good number of customers that have accounts that are right at the $100K mark. It is not unusual for business accounts to have at least that much in the bank.
But the notion that you are over insured is very calming to little old widow ladies.
[/quote]
The number is 38% of accounts have over 100k according to Fox Business. This includes all the business accounts.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
rainjack wrote:
dhickey wrote:
rainjack wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
The FDIC will never have to. As long as people think there money is safe with a high insured amount then the bank runs will NOT occur. Thereby preventing many bank failures that would only happen if people panic and take their money out.
Nothing can help banks that are insolvent and they have always failed throughout history. What we don’t want are failures due to lack of liquidity and this helps that.
The bankers I talked to said the ONLY thing in the bail out that would help them would be the raising of the FDIC limits. Not because anything financial, but because it will help put people more at ease.
I don’t get this provision. How many people have more than 100k in a single FDIC insured account? It can’t be that many people. If they do, they should just move it rather than changing the whole FDIC. Am I missing something? Does this cover something other than individual accounts?
From what I was told, there are a good number of customers that have accounts that are right at the $100K mark. It is not unusual for business accounts to have at least that much in the bank.
But the notion that you are over insured is very calming to little old widow ladies.
The number is 38% of accounts have over 100k according to Fox Business. This includes all the business accounts.
[/quote]
That suprises me. It just seems like it would be so easy to have two accounts. Much easier than changing the entire FDIC.
That suprises me. It just seems like it would be so easy to have two accounts. Much easier than changing the entire FDIC.
It’s not that. It is the psychological notion that you are insured not for just 100K, but for 250K. For some reason, it makes people feel safer.
I do know that both bankers were very excited at the prospect of increasing the insurance.
[/quote]
Also, that original 100k from nearly 30 yrs ago is now 266k in today’s dollars. Regardless, whether people split their accounts or the limit is raised, it is still the same amount of money that would be insured.
That suprises me. It just seems like it would be so easy to have two accounts. Much easier than changing the entire FDIC.
It’s not that. It is the psychological notion that you are insured not for just 100K, but for 250K. For some reason, it makes people feel safer.
I do know that both bankers were very excited at the prospect of increasing the insurance.
Also, that original 100k from nearly 30 yrs ago is now 266k in today’s dollars. Regardless, whether people split their accounts or the limit is raised, it is still the same amount of money that would be insured. [/quote]
Yep, was thinking about that. I think having different accounts, possibly in different banks, may be a bit less risky from an insurance perspective. If some bank offers a great interest rate on deposits and there were no limit on insurance, they might get enourmous and fail. The insurance risk would probably be a bit higher than the risk of multiple banks failing.
No backround in finance but is seems they (FDIC) would want to spread the liability to as many different banks as possible.
Sounded alot more supportive of new drilling than in the past. “Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.”
�??I think this is a last-ditch effort to go out and rape the offshore continental shelf, so that they own it and are able to use it as leverage in the future, because they know if they don�??t get it in the last couple of months of this administration, they�??re not going to get it,�?? http://www.bidenforsenate.com/home.php/news/clipping/biden_rips_bush_on_energy/
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
RJ, I hope you know the system well enough to know that FDIC is essentially a ruse which cannot possibility guarantee all deposits. It’s simply a fraud.
There is no way of backing up currency which can be inflated 9 times for every real unit of monetary worth. Were a large bank panic to occur, the FDIC reserves would be depleted extremely fast.
High level bankers often lack an understanding of fundamental economics. They are so involved with the inner workings of their business that they can’t see the forest through the trees.
I’ve no way of assessing the credibility of this report. But if it’s true, and there really is a bank holiday, then I would take that as bona fide proof that the end is very near.
Guess we’ll know soon enough
The FDIC will never have to. As long as people think there money is safe with a high insured amount then the bank runs will NOT occur. Thereby preventing many bank failures that would only happen if people panic and take their money out.
Nothing can help banks that are insolvent and they have always failed throughout history. What we don’t want are failures due to lack of liquidity and this helps that.
[/quote]
Indeed, that’s what I was alluding to. The FDIC and similar “lenders of last resort” are simply confidence games designed to fool the public. The entire Federal Reserve system was created for this very reason.