SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: long-gone who wrote (67189)4/6/2001 11:23:44 AM
From: Michael Collings  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116779
 
Hate to interject this in the interesting political debate on China/US.

However, Long, your link on federal insurance on banks bears the proper scrutiny. Specifically, "About 9,100 banks and thrifts, or 92 percent of all insured institutions, currently pay no premiums. The two funds for banks and thrifts are now flush, with a total cushion of $42 billion. "

That is about enough to cover the deposits of 1 1/2 large regional banks. We're in trouble!



To: long-gone who wrote (67189)4/6/2001 2:37:59 PM
From: goldsheet  Respond to of 116779
 
> All banks should pay for deposit insurance according to their risk of failure

Sounds fair, if I have to pay different premiums based on age, gender, etc.. then banks should do the same.

> and the $100,000 limit on account coverage should be adjusted for inflation

One of the last pieces of legislation out of the Carter administration was raising FDIC insurance for 40K to 100K. It created the era of brokered deposits, huge sums of money chasing rates without any regard to risk. Depositors made no effort to determine the viability of institutions (I had 2 S&L go under where I had accounts)

Maybe they should index it to inflation, or maybe just leave it alone and force depositors to either take the risk over 100K, pay the FDCI insurance premium over 100K, get private insurance, or diversify their deposits into many banks.