Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: July 14, 2008 01:22PM
I thought we had the FDIC to prevent this...
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWA000014120080714?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Those folks are all withdrawing FDIC funds. Holy crap! I hope this doesn't spread to other banks. I seriously doubt FDIC has the funds to hold off a widespread banking panic.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWA000014120080714?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Those folks are all withdrawing FDIC funds. Holy crap! I hope this doesn't spread to other banks. I seriously doubt FDIC has the funds to hold off a widespread banking panic.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: July 14, 2008 01:23PM
"I have $360,000 in this bank, and I was misled by this bank," said Robert Clark, a Glendale resident who was waiting on line. "I gave the names of my mother, my sister and my brother on the account so I thought I would be insured. I don't know what to do. I really don't know what to do."
...kiss $260,000 goodbye.
...kiss $260,000 goodbye.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: July 14, 2008 01:54PM
Yeah, if one is going to keep over $100k in banks and is not married, you need to keep it at different banks.
A joint account is insured to $100k per account owner if I am not mistaken. The guy in the article may have been "giving names" of family members, but unless they were cosigners on the account I doubt that will fly.
A joint account is insured to $100k per account owner if I am not mistaken. The guy in the article may have been "giving names" of family members, but unless they were cosigners on the account I doubt that will fly.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: July 14, 2008 02:01PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, if one is going to keep over $100k in banks
> and is not married, you need to keep it at
> different banks.
>
> A joint account is insured to $100k per account
> owner if I am not mistaken. The guy in the
> article may have been "giving names" of family
> members, but unless they were cosigners on the
> account I doubt that will fly.
I'm not really sure why anyone would keep more than $100K in a bank account anyway. Not sure how having that much cash lying around makes much sense. That's what investments are for.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, if one is going to keep over $100k in banks
> and is not married, you need to keep it at
> different banks.
>
> A joint account is insured to $100k per account
> owner if I am not mistaken. The guy in the
> article may have been "giving names" of family
> members, but unless they were cosigners on the
> account I doubt that will fly.
I'm not really sure why anyone would keep more than $100K in a bank account anyway. Not sure how having that much cash lying around makes much sense. That's what investments are for.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: July 14, 2008 02:37PM
In this market, a 3%+ yield is a good place to flee to safety for a portion of your portfolio.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: July 14, 2008 02:48PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In this market, a 3%+ yield is a good place to
> flee to safety for a portion of your portfolio.
Hell of a downside risk for 3% though, sticking $360K in a $100K account.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In this market, a 3%+ yield is a good place to
> flee to safety for a portion of your portfolio.
Hell of a downside risk for 3% though, sticking $360K in a $100K account.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: July 14, 2008 04:29PM
You are mixing posts. I was responding to why one would have $100k+ in banks. 3%+ yield spread out over multiple banks does not risk $260k of $360k to uninsured deposits.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: July 14, 2008 04:31PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are mixing posts. I was responding to why one
> would have $100k+ in banks. 3%+ yield spread out
> over multiple banks does not risk $260k of $360k
> to uninsured deposits.
I'm just saying that from a de facto standpoint this guy ran more risk than junk bonds for a measly 3% return. I'm not arguing with the idea of being up 3% when the market is down 20%.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are mixing posts. I was responding to why one
> would have $100k+ in banks. 3%+ yield spread out
> over multiple banks does not risk $260k of $360k
> to uninsured deposits.
I'm just saying that from a de facto standpoint this guy ran more risk than junk bonds for a measly 3% return. I'm not arguing with the idea of being up 3% when the market is down 20%.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
funds
()
Date: July 14, 2008 11:18PM
The FDIC has a huge reserve for this type of scenario. The reason this bank failed is it was giving out loans without checking the borrowers credit history, ect. So its hard to blame the FDIC for them failing. The other reason it was failing is because some body released information that they where having trouble and account holders quickly withdrew like 1 billion dollars... The FDIC keeps it all quit and if somebody else spills the beans than thats their fault... So dont worry the FDIC has plenty of money to protect your accounts
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
Former NYer
()
Date: July 14, 2008 11:26PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought we had the FDIC to prevent this...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWA00001
> 4120080714?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp
> =true
>
> Those folks are all withdrawing FDIC funds. Holy
> crap! I hope this doesn't spread to other banks. I
> seriously doubt FDIC has the funds to hold off a
> widespread banking panic.
Thank you Chuckie Schumer!
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought we had the FDIC to prevent this...
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWA00001
> 4120080714?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp
> =true
>
> Those folks are all withdrawing FDIC funds. Holy
> crap! I hope this doesn't spread to other banks. I
> seriously doubt FDIC has the funds to hold off a
> widespread banking panic.
Thank you Chuckie Schumer!
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: July 15, 2008 10:14AM
Former NYer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you Chuckie Schumer!
Schumer shouldn't have said what he did. But the fact is IndyMac's management put the bank in this position, not Schumer. To blame him for years of gross mismanagement by the bank's leadership is ridiculous.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you Chuckie Schumer!
Schumer shouldn't have said what he did. But the fact is IndyMac's management put the bank in this position, not Schumer. To blame him for years of gross mismanagement by the bank's leadership is ridiculous.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: July 15, 2008 10:19AM
funds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The FDIC has a huge reserve for this type of
> scenario.
Yeah, for a handful of major banks. But if this becomes a problem across the system, you will be looking at an S&L style bailout using more tax dollars.
The reason this bank failed is it was
> giving out loans without checking the borrowers
> credit history, ect.
You don't think virtually ever lender was doing this during the housing boom? These idiots wanted de-regulation. They got it. And they blew it!
So its hard to blame the FDIC
> for them failing.
No one was blaming FDIC. I was pointing out that the bank was insolvent, so all these withdrawals are pulling dollars out of FDIC's coffers.
The other reason it was failing
> is because some body released information that
> they where having trouble and account holders
> quickly withdrew like 1 billion dollars...
I agree Schumer shouldn't have said that. But he isn't to blame for the bank's sorry condition.
The
> FDIC keeps it all quit and if somebody else spills
> the beans than thats their fault... So dont worry
> the FDIC has plenty of money to protect your
> accounts
I'm sure people used to say the same thing about FSLIC back in the 80s....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSLIC
-------------------------------------------------------
> The FDIC has a huge reserve for this type of
> scenario.
Yeah, for a handful of major banks. But if this becomes a problem across the system, you will be looking at an S&L style bailout using more tax dollars.
The reason this bank failed is it was
> giving out loans without checking the borrowers
> credit history, ect.
You don't think virtually ever lender was doing this during the housing boom? These idiots wanted de-regulation. They got it. And they blew it!
So its hard to blame the FDIC
> for them failing.
No one was blaming FDIC. I was pointing out that the bank was insolvent, so all these withdrawals are pulling dollars out of FDIC's coffers.
The other reason it was failing
> is because some body released information that
> they where having trouble and account holders
> quickly withdrew like 1 billion dollars...
I agree Schumer shouldn't have said that. But he isn't to blame for the bank's sorry condition.
The
> FDIC keeps it all quit and if somebody else spills
> the beans than thats their fault... So dont worry
> the FDIC has plenty of money to protect your
> accounts
I'm sure people used to say the same thing about FSLIC back in the 80s....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSLIC
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
Former NYer
()
Date: July 15, 2008 11:11PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Former NYer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Thank you Chuckie Schumer!
>
>
> Schumer shouldn't have said what he did. But the
> fact is IndyMac's management put the bank in this
> position, not Schumer. To blame him for years of
> gross mismanagement by the bank's leadership is
> ridiculous.
Not blaming him for mismanagement, just the ridiculous run on the bank. He can write all the letters he wants, it is another thing to publicise them. Congress is non-foiable as are their letters to agencies and the private sector. To make a name for yourself on press releases with no real results set him down this path.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Former NYer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Thank you Chuckie Schumer!
>
>
> Schumer shouldn't have said what he did. But the
> fact is IndyMac's management put the bank in this
> position, not Schumer. To blame him for years of
> gross mismanagement by the bank's leadership is
> ridiculous.
Not blaming him for mismanagement, just the ridiculous run on the bank. He can write all the letters he wants, it is another thing to publicise them. Congress is non-foiable as are their letters to agencies and the private sector. To make a name for yourself on press releases with no real results set him down this path.
Re: Run on IndyMac Bank
Posted by:
Jorge Bailey
()
Date: July 15, 2008 11:26PM
Well, I went to the Wachovia today in what you would call a "run on the bank." I asked for my cash and the manager Jorge told me that he didn't have the money, He said, "your money's in Jose's house...right next to yours. And in the Ramirez house, and Mrs. Gonzalez's house, and a hundred others." How right he was.