Posted on 08/26/2016 9:42:23 AM PDT by MeganC
Same, wrong, conclusion there.
That article talks about new entities becoming owners of the depositor accounts, sort of like having your mortgage sold, except that you won’t necessarily have the same savings rate.
Also, it refers to depositors in investment banks, which is not the same as your FDIC insured bank.
So, that article, while better than zerohedge, has a lot of different subjects in it, each with it’s own particular context.
I guess the US crooks will see how to put us all on the plantation....when the pension guarantee corp runs out of money, which it already may have, I guess they will force the pensioners to work for their defunct companies at the same level as that of a slave.
Then by all means, please put all of your money in the bank where the 100% trustworthy people from the Federal Government will take care of it for you.
Yea, they are the banks asset though, not the depositor. The depositor is owed, though it is a demand deposit under normal circumstances.
Correct.
But the assets are not what’s being proposed to use for bail out.
Creditors and shareholders are.
So, again, the article linked makes no mention of using depositor accounts to pay for bail out, which contradicts the title of the thread.
Then maybe banks should quit making loans they don’t expect to be repaid.
As long as you are under the belief you are not an unsecured creditor when you deposit money into your bank account, you will never properly interpret any of these articles.
One day the banks will charge a fee, or an interest rate on demand deposits. They will justify the charge saying, security of your assets cost money.
I hope I’m wrong.
5.56mm
Whomever deposited money is a creditor.
As long as you are under the belief that cash is a real asset, you will never properly interpret reality.
the Government is proposing to implement a bail-in regime that would reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks—not taxpayers. This would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a failing systemically important bank into common shares to recapitalize the bank and allow it to remain open and operating.
If they meant depositors, why say "long-term debt"?
They could have easily said "all debt" or "bank shareholders and creditors and depositors".
The OP's claim is weak.
And the first little piggie built his house out of straw. The wolf lit it up and had roast pork for supper.
If they knowingly violate the law, the regulators will come down on them. And the law requires bad loans. CRA exams are as important as regular exams.
For your reading enjoyment: https://www.frbatlanta.org/banking/publications/community-reinvestment-act/your-banks-overall-cra-rating.aspx
Then maybe the government should quit requiring banks to make loans they know will never be repaid.
Not exactly. When the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) was running low, they assessed banks for three years worth of fees. As a further backstop, they arranged for a line of credit with the Treasury, which was not used.
Current balance in the DIF is approximately $72 Billion.
FDIC is one of the few federal agencies I trust, but I'm biased. I worked for them from 2009-2014, in the division that handled the bank closings. Now I'm working at another agency, and I'm miserable...no leadership, no accountability, no nothing.
Would've stayed at the FDIC if I could have, but I was on a term contract, and the term ended.
Ellen is funny. Not a serious source of info.
yup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.