FDIC: Can We Hit You Back Next Year?
I came across a pretty scary story this morning regarding the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
From Bloomberg
:
March 4 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said the fund it uses to protect customer deposits at U.S. banks could dry up amid a surge in bank failures, as she responded to an industry outcry against new fees approved by the agency.“Without these assessments, the deposit insurance fund could become insolvent this year,” Bair wrote in a March 2 letter to the industry. U.S. community banks plan to flood the FDIC with about 5,000 letters in protest of the fees, according to a trade group.
“A large number” of bank failures may occur through 2010 because of “rapidly deteriorating economic conditions,” Bair said in the letter. “Without substantial amounts of additional assessment revenue in the near future, current projections indicate that the fund balance will approach zero or even become negative.”
So, in everyday speak: “Uh, look. We promised you that the money you have your bank would be insured up to 250,000 if the bank goes under. Will you be cool if we went back on that promise?”
This is not trivial. Remember how the FDIC works. Say you have a bank account with $120,000 in it. (First of all, if you are in this situation, what are you doing?!) The FDIC will (currently) insure all of this. So if your bank fails (like IndyMac did last year); the government (usually) steps in, takes over the bank, and tries to sell the bank after writing down the losses. If the FDIC goes insolvent however, they won’t be able to pay these obligations. So your entire balance will be uninsured.
And What is the FDIC doing to meet this shortfall?
The FDIC last week approved a one-time “emergency” fee and other assessment increases on the industry to rebuild a fund to repay customers for deposits of as much as $250,000 when a bank fails. The fees, opposed by the industry, may generate $27 billion this year after the fund fell to $18.9 billion in the fourth quarter from $34.6 billion in the previous period, the FDIC said.
The fund, which lost $33.5 billion in 2008, was drained by 25 bank failures last year. Sixteen banks have failed so far this year, further straining the fund.
Any takers that this won’t be a “one-time” thing?
What should YOU do?
I don’t have all the answers, but what I’m doing is making sure that funds are spread across several banks. If you have a very large amount of money in one big bank, it’s best to spread it around. Even if you have a small amount of cash, stay informed about your bank's operations, especially if it's a big bank.
(Cross-posted at Wealth Weekly ).
- Charles J's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
Sheila Bair is
a sensible woman.
It's smart to make sure there is enough money to back up FDIC guarantees.
There seems to be a sense of irrational fear permeating the country.
I personally would like to see some people go to jail for the blatant fraud that has been committed by so called reputable financial institutions. Maybe that would start a healing process.
I'm only half stupid
Problem solved
The FDIC just got a $500 billion line of credit from the government:
I think this was pretty much a formality, and the FDIC would have gotten a quick assist anyway if it needed funds in a hurry due to a big failure, as it is our one institution that has proven experience at managing and disposing of failed banks-- a very importatnt area of competence at this particular point in time!
I think that depositors should be more worried about the government inflating away the value of their bank balances than about the solvency of the FDIC.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Would you prefer
a massive run on the banks? It seems like there isn't much of an alternative.
I'm only half stupid
?
I didn't criticize the move at all.
And no, I don't want a run on the banks.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I thought
this statement,
"I think that depositors should be more worried about the government inflating away the value of their bank balances than about the solvency of the FDIC.",
implied that you were more worried about inflation that FDIC using govt funds. Sorry.
Sheila Bair had originally asked that bankers pay a fee of 20 cents on every $100 of FDIC insurance to supplement the fund. Because of a hue and cry by 'good' banks she lowered the fee to 10 cents/$100 and the govt set up an emergency bridge loan if needed to guarantee the FDIC fund.
The original fee of 20 cents/100 sounded reasonable to me, and would have left govt funds out of the situation. FDIC insurance is paid by the banks, not the taxpayers, but the funds have been sorely depleted of late.
You know things are bad when other bankers are accusing Wall Street of greed and incompetence!
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=anmrn4H8hXfw&refer=exclusive
I'm only half stupid
Hmmm...And where did the Government come up w/ $500B?
The worlds biggest shell game...pretty ugly if you ask me!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Banks in Trouble
The recession threatens spike in the bank failures and add to worry over credit crunch. Every morning now seems to bring the dread of wondering which financial shoe will be the next to drop. A lot banks now are in trouble. The banks that need the most help, the smaller banks in communities, are usually the ones that get ignored while the biggest ones, that made campaign contributions we might add, (as we cough sarcastically) are the ones that get the short term loans from the stimulus package. However, after we gave them all that money, they don't want to lend it. Less mortgage loans are being lent, and less aid is available for students. What happened to the short term loan we gave the banks?