I guess Mr. Potter donated to Schumer's campaign.
Posted on 07/14/2008 10:30:24 AM PDT by kc8ukw
PASADENA, California (Reuters) - IndyMac Bancorp Inc customers lined up outside a branch at the company's headquarters on Monday, hoping to withdraw their money after regulators seized what was once one of the largest mortgage lenders in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I think after $100K, an account is only insured for a percentage of its value. Maybe they are saying they will try to guarantee more than that.
They will sell off loans and such to get some $$ and try to cover some of the uninsured $$ people have in accounts.
How they decide who gets paid and who doesn't...who knows
400 in line. Like buying iPhones or xBoxes.
I read that after 100K per person (not account...so 2X 100K accounts would help...only 100K is insured) will be given a pro rata percentage of the dissolution of the bank. I didn’t know that’s how it worked with regard to multiple accounts under the same taxpayer ID. Good lesson.
The depositors are first in line for all available assets. I believe they have already declared a 50% dividend on all assets over the insured limit. That translates into getting 50 cents on the dollar for all uninsured assets immediately and then hoping more will be raised later as the assets are sold off. Keep in mind that living trusts are insured at 100K for each beneficiary although it gets confusing. I don’t know of too many folks with over 100K in individual accounts at one bank. Most would be in a living trust or other vehicle. Hopefully not too many folks are out significant money. I was happy to see the 50% dividend come out already so it appears there a high degree of confidence the assets will yield far more.
IN other news,National City trades were halted this morning after a 27% decrease in value and fear of a “run”.
The oddest part of the article to me was the headline: IndyMac Borrowers line up... Reuters is just plain stupid not to know the difference between depositors and borrowers.
Someone at Reuters doesn’t know the difference between depositors and borrowers.
Also, there is some irony that the writer is named “Keating.”
I’m thinking that keeping a certain basic amount of cash on hand isn’t too bad of an idea right now. We could be headed down a steeper pit than in 1929!~
ditto what you said “borrowers line up to withdraw cash”, huh????
“I think after $100K, an account is only insured for a percentage of its value.”
On a joint account it’s $200k.
I had to follow the link to see if the headline was really that stupid. Y’know, typos happen...but it really is “...borrowers line up...”
Not to mention that 95% of the people in line don’t need to be. The first 100K is perfectly safe and 200K for joint accounts. I’d be in line if I had 600K in my living trust and six beneficiaries....I’d know my money was safe and insured but I’d be in line anyway to verify. Those with under 100K should be at work.
What? Hadn’t heard about National City...
If they have less than 100K, and are in line, it's because they want to be on television or in the newspaper, preferrably both.
I am guessing any rumor of a bank being on that list will cause some panic now.
I guess Mr. Potter donated to Schumer's campaign.
damn..I’m out of the loop...
I always wonder where the athletes who get millions deposit their checks. If they get 300,000 a week do they have to find 3 banks every week?
I have heard its a good idea to keep some cash just in case mainly for emergencies.
OOPS, way to go Chuck...
National City has been under pressure for a while - it’s widely assumed that it is trying to find a buyer. All of the regional banks are in trouble - KeyCorp., Nat City, and SunTrust are the biggest.
I just heard this discussed on the radio this weekend. Your account is insured for 100,000, but you may not be able to access that money in one withdrawal. They evidently mete it out, sort of like a rationing system. The “expert” I heard talking about it said that it could take weeks-months to get all your $$$ if you had a large amount on deposit.
IndyMac has over $1 billion in uninsured deposits, so apparently a fair number of people do have over 100K in accounts. Many just don't take the limit seriously, or don't believe anything will ever happen to them, or just get older and don't pay close attention to their money.
I doubt this will get much play. If it had been McCain, we would be looking for a new Presidential candidate from all the media coverage. A Republican senator who did something like that would be railroaded faster than Larry Craig. His name would be the lead story in every news broadcast for a month. But Schumer? He didn't do it, nobody saw him do it, and anyway you can't prove anything.
You are incorrect sir.
The insurance is for $100k per depositor. If you and your wife want $200k coverage, the other $100kl must be in her name.
“IndyMac has over $1 billion in uninsured deposits, so apparently a fair number of people do have over 100K in accounts. Many just don’t take the limit seriously, or don’t believe anything will ever happen to them, or just get older and don’t pay close attention to their money.”
Did not know that. I have a hard time figuring out how they can possibly know that however. It would have to be a very very rough guess. I would hope most of the people with assets in the amounts we’re talking about have a living trust. A trust account with 1 Million on deposit would show as insured for either 100 or 200K and yet could be insured for up to the full amount given that it’s 100K per bene and the bank has no clue how many benes there are. I’m guessing this is a very common scenario. Grandparents who keep their coin in CD’s and have the children and grandchildren listed as benes in the trust docs so the entire 1 Million is fully insured.
The most frequent cases are older folks who have cashed out their retirement plans and/or sold their homes.
They think that “banks don’t fail” or that “all of their money is insured.”
They do, and it isn’t.
If your parents just sold some large assets sit with them and review their finances. Understand their rights, and what is protected and what isn’t. GET IT IN WRITING.
Back in the banking day (not that long ago) EVERYONE employed in the customer contact section of the bank, no matter what their role was (I ran a contact arm of the bank, but NEVER spoke to customers about this stuff) had to take a test. If you failed the test, you could not work. No kidding. The FDIC did not screw around with this. So if you hear of a teller or an officer telling people they could get more than $100k in coverage, report it. And take your money out of that bank.
I’m sure almost all of it goes directly to their investment accounts.
Its easy....calculate the amount of accounts over $100k. Subtract the insured amount. The remainder is uninsured.
The listing of beneficiaries doesnt matter one lick. It depends on who owns the money—not who is going to get it. Trusts and what not do not matter. CDs do not matter.
If I have an account with $50k, and four CD’s with $25k each, guess what—the amount of the total over $100k is not insured.
Banks can, and often do, buy additional insurance. It is expensive and it restrictive beyond the normal regulatory levels. Thats why big banks don’t use it.
Make big-mouthed Chuck Schumer open his wallet (and his off-shore accounts.......)........
We’re not. But a certain amount of cash on hand is always a good idea.
Leave it to al Reuters. I think the title should say IndyMac Depositors. Borrowers don’t have any money to withdraw in the first place, hence, they are borrowing......
These are deposit accounts owned by one person and titled in that person’s name only. All of your single accounts at the same insured bank are added together and the total is insured up to $100,000. For example, if you have a checking account and a CD at the same insured bank, and both accounts are in your name only, the two accounts are added together and the total is insured up to $100,000.
Note: Retirement accounts and qualifying trust accounts are not included in this ownership category.
These are deposit accounts owned by one person and titled in the name of that person’s retirement plan. Only the following types of retirement plans are insured in this ownership category:
All deposits that an individual has in any of the types of retirement plans listed above at the same insured bank are added together and the total is insured up to $250,000. For example, if an individual has an IRA and a self-directed Keogh account at the same bank, the deposits in both accounts would be added together and insured up to $250,000.
Its easy....calculate the amount of accounts over $100k. Subtract the insured amount. The remainder is uninsured.
The listing of beneficiaries doesnt matter one lick. It depends on who owns the money—not who is going to get it. “Trusts and what not do not matter. CDs do not matter.
If I have an account with $50k, and four CD’s with $25k each, guess what—the amount of the total over $100k is not insured.
Banks can, and often do, buy additional insurance. It is expensive and it restrictive beyond the normal regulatory levels. Thats why big banks don’t use it.”
That’s simply not true. A revocable living trust with two grantors (husband and wife) and ten beneficiaries (three children and seven grandchildren) is insured for 1.2 Million. This is even clearly explained on the website set up for the current disaster to help people understand their situation. The bank has no way of knowing how many benes there are.
isn’t all this per account? can’t you just open 2 or 25 accounts at the same bank and each is insured? or is it per depositor?
Somebody needs to do a financial estimation of the money lost IN TAXES
for the hours that people have spent in line due to this
“run on a bank”.
And send the bill to Senator Chuck Schumer.
Payable to the US Treasury.
You’re thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The money’s not here. Your money’s in Joe’s house...right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs. Macklin’s house, and a hundred others. Why, you’re lending them the money to build, and then, they’re going to pay it back to you as best they can. Now what are you going to do? Foreclose on them?...Now wait...now listen...now listen to me. I beg of you not to do this thing. If Potter gets hold of this Building and Loan there’ll never be another decent house built in this town. He’s already got charge of the bank. He’s got the bus line. He’s got the department stores. And now he’s after us. Why? Well, it’s very simple. Because we’re cutting in on his business, that’s why. And because he wants to keep you living in his slums and paying the kind of rent he decides. Joe, you lived in one of those Potter houses, didn’t you? Well, have you forgotten? Have you forgotten what he charged you for that broken-down shack? Here, Ed. You know, you remember last year when things weren’t going so well, and you couldn’t make your payments? You didn’t lose your house, did you? Do you think Potter would have let you keep it? Can’t you understand what’s happening here? Don’t you see what’s happening? Potter isn’t selling. Potter’s buying! And why? Because we’re panicky and he’s not. That’s why. He’s picking up some bargains. Now, we can get through this thing all right. We’ve got to stick together, though. We’ve got to have faith in each other.
It’s 100K per depositor. Last time ‘round, though, I think they wound up paying more than 100K to individual depositors just ot make sure nobody lost out.
I recall, at the time, there was talk that each individual was insured for only 100K from all institutions, so if a person had multiple accounts in multiple banks, he would only be insured for hte first 100K of total losses in all banks.
I’m not an expert, merely researched it at length for a friend and talked to an attorney. It appears it’s per depositer per bank. You could open several 100K accounts or 200K joint accounts w your spouse at each bank but if you’re that aware then the matter is moot. Most people doing any level of planning would have a trust or at the very least a brokerage account, both of which appear to largely solve this problem. I can see where someone might have a trust, not have too many dependents, and want all of their money in CD’s and I’m glad it appears they will at least get the insured amount plus 50% of the excess. It looks like they might get more back later.
Please send more pics. I have a buddy in that line and it would have been hillarious if we had it on camera. He’s not seeing the humor at the moment.
High earners like athletes don’t just deposit their money in banks. They generally have dedicated asset managers who move their money directly into investments.
Sometimes that works well, sometimes they end up like Junior Seau and have their assets stolen.
I under calculated the insurance in my prior example. A living trust with husband and wife as grantors, three children and seven grandchildren as beneficiaries, would have a 2 Million dollar insurable amount while both grantors are alive. That’s 100K for each of the ten benes for each grantor. That’s far more than the 100K limit for a simple thing like a living trust. Not bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.