On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:19:00 -0500, "HW \"Skip\" Weldon"
<skip5700removethis[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Nothing like having to respond to my own post. <grin
Upon further reading, it appears that my definition of "self-directed
account" is faulty. They seem to be saying that any account where the
saver directs investments - not the plan custodian - is self-directed.
Based on that, an non-brokerage IRA at the local bank using a CD would
qualify and carry the new $250,000 FDIC coverage.

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:06:49 -0500, "Mark Freeland"
<nNeEwTs[at]sonic.net> wrote:

- quote -

This might be a big deal, but I am having trouble understanding the
material. Here is what I think they say:

First, the higher FDIC limit only applies to certain retirement
accounts using traditional bank investments (money market, CD) at FDIC
insured banks. It does not apply, for example, to a mutual fund or
stocks held by a bank custodian or in a brokerage account at Merrill
Lynch, Fidelity, etc.

Second, the account must be a self-directed account. While I am not
sure, the term "self directed" to me means that the account must be a
brokerage account able to invest in mutual funds, annuities, etc. In
that case only the assets invested in FDIC banks and using CDs or MMAs
would be eligible for the higher limits. An IRA with a bank custodian
invested solely in a CD would not qualify.

Does anyone disagree with the above?

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

For "self-directed retirement accounts" (IRAs, SEPs, 457s, self-directed
Keoghs, self-directed 401(k)s)
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits...tml#retirement

This increase went into effect this month.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/busine...0000-for-iras/
--
Mark Freeland
nNeEwTs[at]sonic.net