Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (272310)	10/3/2008 10:07:14 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

I think that raising the amount is a bad idea...it just encourages the banks to gamble more recklessly....

To: TimF who wrote (272310)	10/4/2008 2:22:34 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

i am all for deposit insurance , unlimited . why stop at $250,000. banks should have to pay for the insurance according to the risk of their investments. if the deposits are risk free then lowest insurance fee. if they invest in commercial paper etc for higher rates in money market funds.. then much higher insurance fee. The writer doesn't appear to relate to the average low and middle income saver who puts their money into banks. he calls it lazy if the deposits are insured.. The majority of people are not interested in finances and certainly do not have the back ground to evaluate risk. Most who have their money in these cash accounts are low risk average joe who doesn't believe in mutual funds, and for the most part never had a brokerage account. I would like to see what the exposure would be for accounts above $250,000. We are talking about your average consumer , who drives the economy, and their life savings are in the local banks and equity in their homes. If they lose both , there is zero chance they will ever recover in their life time. Insurance costs could be on the deposit account according to size of account.