Print Story Madness
By ucblockhead (Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 07:16:11 AM EST) (all tags)
Off the deep end.

Update [2008-9-30 22:15:19 by ucblockhead]: Clarified my FDIC insurance position.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

I am shocked and appalled that my political opponents have implied that I was against raising the FDIC insurance limits. I have, of course, always been for that despite what the liberal media would have you believe!

Perhaps it is a reflection of the modern times, but this weekend has me thinking about how odd my family is, with so many byzantine by-marriage links.  I've got a by-blood aunt I've seen once in thirty years, yet my stepfather's half-sister seems like a close relative.

I interrupted the movie diet to see Deep Water, a documentary about David Crowhurst's ill-fated entry in the first round-the-world yacht race in 1968.  Fascinating story.  I was already familiar with it from the wonderful modern opera Ravenshead.  It's a very sad story of a man who finds himself with impossible choices, and goes insane.

Though he was actually one of two that went bonkers in that race, something which I had not known before.

< "Hard Times Straight Ahead?" | Continuing Anathem >
Madness | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
FDIC by duxup (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:10:54 AM EST
Even better if you have $100k in a single account and you have a spouse and you put both names on the account you get $100k insured, and $100k insured for your spouse..... then your spouse gets $100k of insurance, and they get $100k for you.  It is weird that it doubles up like that but that's $400k of insured money, cripes.

FDIC Limits by george (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:38:19 AM EST
Seriously...if you have more than $100k in a single bank account, you are both rich and stupid.
Seriously, you sound both condescending and stupid... There are many ways for a financially unsophisticated person to end up with $100k+ (e.g., life insurance payout, retirement buyout, inheritance). "Rich" is a fuzzy term, but if you have limited capacity to earn income in the future then six-figures in savings does not necessarily make you rich (depending how long you have to live, how many dependents you have, etc) in my mind. Further, while it may demonstrate a lack of financial knowledge, and I would certainly never do it, putting more than $100k in a CD at your local bank is the sort of "mistake" than an ordinarily reasonable fellow could make. As far as money mistakes go this strikes me as one of the less obvious ones you could make.

What's the argument against increasing FDIC insurance limits? The $100k limit was established in 1980. Why shouldn't it be indexed to inflation? A quick run through an inflation calculator tells me that $100k in 1980 equals $265k in 2008.

Indeed, about the limit. by toxicfur (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:40:22 AM EST
My brother and I are executors of our mom's estate, which has an estate account. I honestly (because I haven't yet gotten all the paperwork) don't know how much is in that account, but it may very well be more then $100K. My mom wasn't rich, and my brother and I certainly aren't. I'm certainly hoping the bank where it's sitting doesn't fail in the next couple of months....

To Rollins lesbians are like cuddly pandas: cute, exotic, forest-dwelling, dangerous when riled and unable to produce offspring without assistance.-CRwM
[ Parent ]
UK Equivalents by Vulch (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 11:09:32 AM EST
The limits over here are for deposits with a single bank, not per account, and that's giving rise for concern as they coalesce. The current limit is 100% of up to £35,000 with a single entity, raised almost exactly a year ago from 100% of £2000 and 90% of the next £33000. There's also an interesting gotcha where if you've got any form of loan with the same entity your savings are first applied to paying that off.

[ Parent ]
According to the numbers by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST
there are plenty of people rich and stupid.  My guess is that the these are multiple petty cash funds of people who can afford to lose >200k in one swoop.

I think my grandmother might have been one of the rich and stupid ones (of course, having lost money in a bank once, I doubt she would have it in one now).  She simply let money accumulate in her checking account and ignored it as long as the checks cleared.  Considering an income comfortably above expenses, it must have grown pretty fast.


[ Parent ]
$100,000 = rich and stupid by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM EST
I can only assume by that statement, that you are about 25.

If you put only $10,000 per year into a retirement account, you'd have over 100,000 by the time you're 35 with no interest, compounded or otherwise. If you've been saving wisely for your working life, if you only have $100,000 by the time you retire, expect to be dirt poor and living on nothing but Social Security and handouts in just a few years.

True, you shouldn't have more than $100,000 /in any one account/, but in an age of consolidation, that's sometimes easier said than done. The bank I recently left, in fact, could be called Shawmut-Boston5-BayBank-BankOfBoston-Fleet-BankOfAmerica who also merged with or bought MBNA and US Trust. And those are just the ones I can remember. Since I live in a big city, I have more choices in banks than someone in more rural areas does. They may have the choice of only one or two. With the advent of online banking (like ING and others) it's easier to find more variety, but I'd say those at or near retirement aren't very comfortable with that (using my parents as an anecdotal example).

The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
IIRC by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:31:08 PM EST
FDIC doesn't insure most mutual funds, etc... Most people don't have their retirement funds in simple bank accounts.
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
They do when they've taken distributions by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 04:43:34 PM EST
Correction by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 05:43:11 PM EST
"in any one account" should read "in any one bank". Because if the bank goes under, the person is insured up to 100k, not each account. So if you have separate accounts under one name, for some reason (multiple savings, christmas club, personal business d/b/a or sole proprietorship, whatever) you could easily lose it.

The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
[ Parent ]
Madness | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback