BEWARE: Read The Fine Print On FDIC Account Insurance......

Yesterday I picked up a printed ad piece at a U.S.Bank branch at a local food market. It is a 5 1/2 X 8 1/2 black print on white paper saying: Bank Solid. Bank Safe. Bank U.S. Bank.

It goes on to say: Now Each Depositor is FDIC Insured to at least $250,000*

See the asterisk above $250,000?

Well if you go to the bottom of the piece the fine print says the following:

On October 3, 2008, FDIC deposit insurance temporarily increased from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor through December 31, 2009. U.S.Bank.

Temporarily? Through December 31, 2009? What does this mean? Are they trying to lull us into a false sense of security? What happens after December 31, 2009? Was this explained by the MSM? Has anybody even commented on this? Am I reading more into this than I should? Can anyone out there in DU land explain and allay my fears?

if you have that much to lose then perhaps you are capable of more than one bank account no?

If I recall correctly, the "deadline" covered everything in the bill, not just the increase for FDIC insurance.

Perhaps, Congress will pass a bill especially for the $250k increase before it sunsets in 2009, or they will continue it if the original bill (ESSA) is approved.

Either way, it's a technicality.

the insurance will go back to covering only $100,000 per account. If you have more than that in one bank you have more than a year to move it into separate banks with no more than $100,000 per bank.

I borrow 30 bucks? I'll pay you back when I get the Boardwalk McDonald game piece.

...is that legislators wanted the increase to expire so that the new Congress that meets in January will have a "bargaining chip" to aid the passage of a comprehensive reform bill.

Democrats in Congress now see the coming increase in seats that will happen after the election, and they believe that an extension of FDIC coverage will help along any laws that Republicans may find unpalatable.

Increasing FDIC coverage for bank accounts has got to be a very popular move. A Rep. or Senator would be hard pressed to explain to his constituents why they would vote against this.

I hope that Democrats will want to couple an extension after January to a bill that would repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that started this whole financial meltdown.

Basically it allows even bigger savings coverage (up to 50 Million!) because the participating
banks share the risk with other banks. I suppose that's one way to keep large deposits in place,
while offering a percentage to other banks. Slightly more costly, but if you have a large
sum to protect it might be a good option.


More info here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x40915

and your own abilities.