FDIC Takes Over Three More Banks (3/20/09)

[OAG]

Not that this is not a regular occurrence but this time it is 3 banks and there were no buyers so FDIC (and the Taxpayers) own these things. 20, so far in 2009: Regulators close 3 banks, bringing the total to 20 this year - Mar. 20, 2009

Oh, on further surfing, here are 2 Credit Unions going into receivership: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/2-corporate-credit-unions-apf-14707022.html

This is starting to take on shades of the S&L debacle.

 

[mathjak107]

if someone was to deposit a check over 100,000 to clear and the next day the bank you deposited it in goes belly up , if the funds are uncollected which bank still retains ownership of the money?


is it not the defuncts banks assets yet as its not collected or would the defunct bank begiven custody as soon as the check is deposited even if it didnt clear?

 

[Purron]

The CNN story includes a map showing where the banks are failing. Why is Georgia having so many failures? Georgia's foreclosure rate is not that bad compared to many other states.

 

[DblDoc]

In the updated article 2 out of 3 have found new owners...

Here is a running list that goes back as far as 2001: FDIC: Bank Failures & Assistance

DD

 

[Gone4Good]

if someone was to deposit a check over 100,000 to clear and the next day the bank you deposited it in goes belly up , if the funds are uncollected which bank still retains ownership of the money?


is it not the defuncts banks assets yet as its not collected or would the defunct bank begiven custody as soon as the check is deposited even if it didnt clear?

I don't know.

But typically bankruptcy makes a distinction between "pre-petition" (before bankruptcy) and "post-petition" (after bankruptcy) claims, with post-petition gaining a preference. I suspect that your deposit would be rolled into the liabilities of the bank as a post-petition claim.

 

[mathjak107]

i would think the deposit would be now owned by the new bank and owed to them but you would still be out anything over 100,000 if your bank wasnt taken over or fdic agrred to pay the overage

 

[OAG]

i would think the deposit would be now owned by the new bank and owed to them but you would still be out anything over 100,000 if your bank wasnt taken over or fdic agrred to pay the overage

I thought it was $250K for THIS year. I think one of the banks in this article actually had $700+ in UNINSURED deposits.

 

[mathjak107]

only ira's i believe are 250,000

 

[Bestwifeever]

All deposts (not only IRAs) are currently insured up to $250,000. From FDIC: Your Insured Deposits

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]

How much insurance coverage does the FDIC provide?

[/FONT]
The basic insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank.

The $250,000 amount applies to all depositors of an insured bank. Deposits in separate branches of an insured bank are not separately insured. Deposits in one insured bank are insured separately from deposits in another insured bank.
Deposits maintained in different categories of legal ownership at the same bank can be separately insured. Therefore, it is possible to have deposits of more than $250,000 at one insured bank and still be fully insured.

 

[mathjak107]

thanks... so a husband and wife can have a joint account up to 250,000 and each an individual account in their own name for an additional 125,000 for a total of 500,000 per married couple

 

[Rustic23]

I would think it has more to do with bank management then the states real estate status.

FDIC: Failed Bank List

I think three in CA, two in FL one in NV, none in MI. Based on the size of CA and FL three is not to far out of line.

 

[DblDoc]

thanks... so a husband and wife can have a joint account up to 250,000 and each an individual account in their own name for an additional 125,000 for a total of 500,000 per married couple

From FDIC:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Deposits maintained in different categories of legal ownership at the same bank can be separately insured. Therefore, it is possible to have deposits of more than $250,000 at one insured bank and still be fully insured.[/FONT]

As far as I understand it each individual account can be up to $250,000. A couple could therefore have up to $750,000 in a single bank - 2 individual accounts with $250,000 each and a joint account with $250,000.

DD

 

[DblDoc]

dbl post

 

[mathjak107]

From FDIC:



As far as I understand it each individual account can be up to $250,000. A couple could therefore have up to $750,000 in a single bank - 2 individual accounts with $250,000 each and a joint account with $250,000.

DD

from what i made out of the fdic site each person is 250,000...so a joint account eats up 125,000 from each person and leaves the balance of 125,000 each for individual accounts... they show examples of this

http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insured/ownership3.html#joint

 

[OAG]

May want to try this site (FDIC Sponsored and NCUA has similar rules): https://www2.fdic.gov/edie/index.html

You can try several different account ownership by one person and multiple ownership (POD, Beneficiary, Joint with Spouse, Joint with a Child, Joint with other different Beneficiaries.

A IRA, of course, is a single owner account insured to $250K since about 2006 and that will continue (as the law is written) beyond 1/1/2010. So at a single institution one can have $250K (IRA)+outside of an IRA $250K (until 1/1/2010) + plus all of the other ways to title the ownership.

 

[DblDoc]

from what i made out of the fdic site each person is 250,000...so a joint account eats up 125,000 from each person and leaves the balance of 125,000 each for individual accounts... they show examples of this

FDIC: Your Insured Deposits

I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying it.

DD