Soctt with your deposit size, why not look into whether a local CDARS bank

http://www.cdars.com/find-cdars-state.php?s=MA

will match the best rates you find? Many smaller banks are willing to match rates for deposits your sieze, and with CDARS you will be fully insured

lampy2k4 said:There are certainly timing issues - FDIC gives out 50% advance day 1, then can take several months to sell assets to recover those 50% and anything over. But that doesn't sound like this would "cost" the fund anything.

So perhaps when FDIC says the failure will "cost" them $X they really mean they will spend $X on administrative expenses to deal with the failure. Then in reality these costs end up being uninsured depositor's burden, not FDIC'.
no its not just admin expenses, or selling assets to recover the 50% "and above" portion....they need to sell assets to pay the amounts UNDER 100k as well. and those assets will be sold at a discount.

Again without wanting this thread to turn into an Indymac specific thread, there was not enough cash to pay depositors, either under 100k or over 100k. There are noncash assets, which when sold are likely to cover everything under 100k and at least 50% over 100k , but not cash at the present moment. The FDIC is advancing this cash and the loss when all is said and done will be a few B/

If you look closely at the picture sis linked in the op, you can see that each person in line has the following in their pockets:

1) a credit card with no rewards

2) a credit card statement showing a revolving balance and a late payment fee

3) a bank statement with a balance earning 0.4% and an overdraft fee charged

To the people in this picture: Thank you for your sacrifice so that we, the fatwallet community, can earn cc rewards and higher interest returns.

Sorry if I a missing something, but I searched and cannot seem to find where I can find a list of the most "secure" banks and financial institutions so I know where to put my money. (or I guess the most in trouble to avoid).

SUCKISSTAPLES said:As far as Bank and CU ratings, Bauer Financial and Bankrate's "Safe and Sound" rating system provide (often wildly inaccurate) ratings. These are wildly inaccurate? I've been using them for so long to make sure I keep my money in a financially-secure institution. Bankrate had Netbank at 1 star for several months before they went under. If I don't use Bauer or Bankrate, what other rating system is there that I can use?

SUCKISSTAPLES said:Every account has equal security in any FDIC or NCUA insured institution provided you stay within their insurance amounts. Thats the point of this thread - structure accounts to be fully insured so you can rest easy and not have to worry about these things. Stay under $100,000 per institution and even if the insitution fails, as long as you are under the insurance limits you simply write a check and move the funds to another bank. No hassles, no waiting in lines, etc. Most of the delays/funds unavailable stories are on people who wree uninsured , or insured but over $100k (PODs, joint accounts etc).

As far as Bank and CU ratings, Bauer Financial and Bankrate's "Safe and Sound" rating system provide (often wildly inaccurate) ratings.
Boldface mine.

If an institution offers an excellent rate, as long as I keep my deposits insured, I'm going to take advantage of opening up joint accounts, single accounts, POD accounts, whatever, assuming I have the funds to support this. I will take the precaution, however, of making sure that the titling of the accounts is correct, and that I have copies of signature cards and all relevant documents. As long as the excellent rate and terms continue, and the funds are fully insured by FDIC or NCUA why would I immediately want to move those funds elsewhere, even if the FI is taken over by the regulators? If I wanted to move the funds, I'd simply wait until the furor dies down, rather than be part of the general panic and contribute to the bank runs, which this thread is trying to prevent.

Please let me know if I'm missing something here. Thanks.

RisingSun96815 said:You have to do a risk-return analysis for yourself to determine if it is worth keeping more than 100k in any one bank. People are reporting hold times on insured money from 11 days to 8 weeks. If you need the money to pay bills, you're out of luck; so there's an obvious cost involved even with insured money. If you have more than 100k, and want to keep it in one bank, then the institution needs to be a financially-strong bank that is not going to fail. People who put more than 100k in an under-performing bank are setting themselves up for future problems.
I agree about the risk analysis, which should include the question: Do I need or anticipate needing immediate access to over $100K? It's the amount in excess of $100K that's the issue here. IMO, your other statements are all subject to this risk analysis, and aren't correct as stand-alone statements. If you're more comfortable not putting anything more than $100K in an under-performing financial institution, that's fine. Remember, though, that under-performing isn't equivalent to going under.

I'd agree that it does make sense to avoid putting new money in excess of $100K in FI's that seem in almost immediate danger of failing, but if they offered an outrageously high rate, I'd give it some thought after invoking the risk analysis that you rightly recommend.

RisingSun96815 said:glxpass said:I agree about the risk analysis, which should include the question: Do I need or anticipate needing immediate access to over $100K? It's the amount in excess of $100K that's the issue here. According to whitelephant's post, the FDIC put a hold on his first 100k.
I didn't get that from the post. I understood the poster to say that an 11-day hold was placed on his check from IndyMac, not the first $100K of his funds at IndyMac. That's very different, and probably has to do with the size of his check and the funds availability policy of the FI where he's depositing the funds rather than IndyMac. He also states that his concern is the remainder of his money at IndyMac. There's not enough information to support your conclusion.

glxpass said: As long as the excellent rate and terms continue, and the funds are fully insured by FDIC or NCUA why would I immediately want to move those funds elsewhere, even if the FI is taken over by the regulators? If I wanted to move the funds, I'd simply wait until the furor dies down, rather than be part of the general panic and contribute to the bank runs, which this thread is trying to prevent.

Please let me know if I'm missing something here. Thanks. I fully agree with you, and this whole thread was created to help avoid future situations where FW'ers are confused, scared and try to get their funds out of a failed bank.

Hopefully by a little bit of advanced planning, they can (like you) avoid worry, wait until the furor dies down, enjoy their high rates, and not contribute to bank runs (either before or after the failure).

SUCKISSTAPLES said:The FDIC is advancing this cash and the loss when all is said and done will be a few B/ Will this loss that you speak of be borne by the FDIC, as the WSJ (and others) seems to indicate? If so, why and how? If not, do you have any sources for your claim? And I just read the last 10 pages of the "Indymac Appears Close to Collapse" thread which you directed us to and didn't see any discussion or information on it there.