"W-w-what!? 50 cents on the dollar? I'll bet Potter is behind it, that old spider!"
Posted on 07/15/2008 9:26:09 AM PDT by xDGx
Link only w/pix of a dozen or so standing outside a bank
At least today the press is calling them “customers”. Yesterday it was “Borrowers” lined up to withdraw their money.
I can’t blame folks for making a run.
After all, the Feds DID put the FULL faith and credit of the United States government behind it.
Maybe someone needs to tell them to go to Chuckie Schumer’s office instead of the bank, afterall his involvement helped spur the crisis.
They are lucky they are getting that.. never have more than 100K in an bank.
Absolutely—and get lawyers and sue his sorry rear end.
susie
Yesterday the line was too long to wait in. I figure my $ is insured ... why wait?
Chris Dodd’s office would work, too.
For retirement accounts it's $250K.
"W-w-what!? 50 cents on the dollar? I'll bet Potter is behind it, that old spider!"
“I'm prepared to pay $0.30 on the dollah'.”
That's not true.....you can have at least $600k in any individual bank..and be covered by FDIC.
By breaking your $ up in different accounts.
Such as "single accounts"..."retirement accounts"..."joint accounts" and "trust accounts".
It's doable....you just need to know how.
I don’t completely trust banks and certainly not the Federal government as it has been known to tell a lie or two over the years....Just because they “say” our money is safe does not make it so. What happens if all the banks crash tomorrow and the govt says “Oops. We don’t really have the $$ to cover ALL accounts?” How could we REALLY make them pay us back? Ultimately, the govt can do whatever in the H it wants to do and we are powerless.
Wouldn’t it be safer to have money spread over several banks vs. several accounts at the same bank?
Why risk having all of your money at one failed bank?
This whole think is quite distressing to me and I’ve got a gut feeling we are about to see a lot of this.
As usual, a handful of top brass (like the top Enron execs) will walk away with full pockets and no punishment while the rest of us lose our arses.
Good point.....: )
> $6.84 Trillion in bank deposits.
> $2.60 Trillion of that is uninsured - over the FDIC limit.
> Total cash on hand at banks is $273.7 Billion.
In the event of a serious bank run, a whole lot of people aren't going to get their hands on their money for a long time, if ever.
And pray the FDIC does not run out of money to cover even that $100K. From CNN Money:
The FDIC estimated it will take $4 billion to $8 billion to cover IndyMac's deposits, likely lowering its reserve ratio to a level that would require it to reassess the rates it charges banks.FDIC is the Federal Deposit INSURANCE Corp. It maintains a pool of money, paid for by the member banks. This is enough to cover a few banks that fail through mismanagement. The FDIC does not have the funds to cover a general failure of the banking system.
If its payouts exceed the FDICs funds, it must go to Congress for an appropriation of money to cover the shortfall. If Congress does not budget the money (perhaps over fears that it would hurt the government's ability to borrow for itself), then even the under-$100K customers are out of luck.
Since you think it's a problem......what dif would it make if you had $600k in one bank or six banks?
You mention Enron.....Do you realize it was a long, long bleed. And people had plenty of time to exit...( albeit, maybe with losses...but they could have gotta out..)
Not defending Enron exec's....but I watched and heard of people that rode it ALL THE WAY DOWN. That's stupid. And people are stupid.
The moral of this post....is you better have a plan. And you better follow "the plan".
Thank the lord I got out of assets and more into liabilities a couple of years ago.
Come on...When have you ever seen a story that had "police" and "prompt" in the same sentence that wasn't a fairy tale?
Response is a lot quicker when some old lady with a cane is giving George Bailey a piece of her mind than when some gangbangers are robbing a liquor store.
If I remember correctly, Enron put a freeze on all employee stock sales. However, there was no such hold on the executives stocks. The employees had no choice but to stand by and watch their life savings go down the toilet, while the exec sold off their own stock at a major profit.
That is the story I remember, but I could be wrong.
Yes, that’s all true, but when the bank goes under it takes time to get paid out.. you are better off having your money at different banks.
funny!
And I also remember something like that....I don't think you are wrong there.
But I think...that was nearer the end. The chart on Enron was death..for many months, if memory serves.
I thought by your post...that you didn't know you could have more.
Fair enough.........
Enron stock went downhill like an avalanche, and the employees weren't allowed to try and save themselves during the debacle. The common employees couldn't see the avalanche coming and had no warning to bail out in time before the stock disaster started. The ownership, though, did see it coming and all of the upper management sold their stock in time.
Forget Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, there were no hero capitalists in charge of Enron, just a bunch of high-flying crooks using Arthur Anderson Accounting to cover for them as long as possible, and then the management took all the parachutes with them when they allowed themselves to bail out in time.
Yeah, I was just being lazy not being more clear.
Enron employees that had stock in their company IRA couldn't sell it at all...if they were under 50 years of age. Number two...in Oct. '01 all employees were told they couldn't sell for 28 days.
That being said.....in Aug. of 2000 Enron stock was $90.00....in Apr of 2001 Enron stock price was $50.00.
Apr. '01 to Oct '01 price went to the $20's...
Nobody in their right mind should have kept that stock...from $90 to $50...let alone $50 to $20. ( Especially the Enron employees over 50..) And that was my point.
Non-employee's and those Enron employee's over 50 had plenty of time to exit. But didn't. And choose to blame others. Human nature, I guess.
Those under 50....got the royal shaft. But, should NOT have agreed to those kinda terms. That in and of itself...should have raised red flags.
Costly lessons....very costly. But to counter your post....the avg. Enron over 50 yrs of age employee should have been watching THEIR money. And the sub-50 employees should have been smarter...but as greed apparently ruled Lay, maybe greed ruled them too.
And please bear in mind...my original post was about non-employees.
Thanks-
See post #31
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.