Andy comments:
I just found out that the FDIC has increased their expiration date for the "250K per account" to Dec 31, 2013. Previously it was 31 Dec 2009.
You can read about it at
A couple other changes have been made in the area of revocable trusts, also known as p.o.d. accounts......
Just wanted to pass this along. The information is on the fdic website....
Andy in Eureka, Texas
their website is a bit of a mess. Here is the direct link:
p.o.d. account changes were done last year, but were welcome.
on 6/7/09 5:37 AM Wallace said the following:
This isn't for depositors. It is to protect banks. When will the asset values be written off? In 20 years? Putting it off to another day is bad. Why not incremental write-offs? The B.S. continues.
you may be correct, but as a depositor I have been waiting for this, and find it most welcome. I wish they didn't put a sunset on it, though.
I predict that as the 2013 date approaches, it will be extended again at the very least..... Otherwise, depositors will start pulling their funds out and splitting the funds between banks, as they are doing now with the October ruling which ended coverage.in 2009.....
Banks want long term deposits --- Depositers want total insurance for their deposits.
Personally, I don't really care that the banks get some benefit out of it as long as the money I deposit is safe. I think most of us "little people" feel the same.
Andy in Eureka, Texas
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: Thank you for timming the previous post.
This little person" here does, because the increased coverage and the number of bank failures has increased the cost of the FDIC insurance quite a bit, which is driving small banks into the hands of Paulson's and Geithner's friends' big banks, now loaded with wads of TARP and cash.
Moreover, the increased limit is encouraging frail banks to offer a too-good-to-be-true rate in order to capitalize money, very likely, insufficiently, because their leverage is unsustainable.
IOW, just more propping up what must come down for the sake of the common good.
while I agree with your comments, they really pertain to matters other than the increased limit. They pertain to it being a temporary limit without increased insurance rates, and inappropriate insurance rates which truly reflect the risk the FDIC is taking on with respect to individual banks.
Exactly my point:
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.