Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
- quote -


He's 77, and his holdings are mostly in US series EE and I savings bonds
(and maybe some E's if they are still earning interest) and bank CD's.
He also has a pension and SS. I've sent you an email with more details
because I'm not comfortable posting them here without his permission.
(no offense intended, Skip)

Best regards, :-)
Bob

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob[at]charter.net> wrote in message
news:5k3nkoF1snk5U1[at]mid.individual.net...
- quote -

Since you didn't describe how you came up with $700K, I'll have to guess
that you are thinking that Husband and Wife to 3 Children should be $300K
instead of $600K.

The rules look at all pairs of owners and beneficiaries. Since there are
two owners and three beneficiaries, that gives six pairings (H - C1, H - C2,
H - C3, W - C1, W - C2, W - C3). Thus, $600K.

See Example 13 in the FDIC Revocable Trust detail link I gave before; it
gives a clearer explanation:
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits...tegories4.html

- quote -

According to the page cited, you have six months grace after an account
owner (but not beneficiary) dies.

- quote -

Or just dump it all in a Treasury MMF. Just don't leave, say, $1M in one
Countrywide account :-).

Mark Freeland
BnetOnewsX[at]sbcglobal.net

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob[at]charter.net> wrote in message
news:5k3nkoF1snk5U1[at]mid.individual.net...
- quote -

Just out of curiosity, is this all of your Dad's holdings? How old is he?
Shouldn't he have at least a portion of his portfolio in a diversified stock
mutual fund?

Elizabeth Richardson

Mark Freeland wrote:
- quote -

I don't understand the $1000000 combined coverage example in the link
that I posted. It looks to me like it should be $700k. I also don't
like it because it assumes that all the owners and beneficiaries are
still alive when the bank fails.

I suggested to my dad that he just limit his holdings at each of several
banks to $100k, and put the rest in US Treasury Notes using
"TreasuryDirect".

Bob

"zxcvbob" <zxcvbob[at]charter.net> wrote in message
news:5k19p0F1mot7U1[at]mid.individual.net...
- quote -

Interesting. So they're treating Totten trust (but only some of them) as
real trusts. All I can say is ... aaaack.

FWIW, here's the FDIC's page specifically on revocable trusts:
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits...tegories4.html

It's a real mess. A Totten trust is not even a real trust, but just a
mechansim for passing assets. See, e.g. this NY Bar Ass'n article:
http://www.nysba.org/Content/Navigat..._marcuccio.pdf
("When a father opens a savings account 'in trust' for his daughter, there
is really no trust, merely a bank account that is payable to the daughter
upon the father's death.")

As you point out, this depends on specific relationships between owners and
beneficiaries - children, etc. Note that spouse is included on this list
(but not if you're in a same marriage), and relations can include
step-relations and half-relations (e.g. step-father, half-sister).

If a husband and wife have a joint account with POD to non-qualified
beneficiaries, then the account is not treated as a joint account, but
rather as two separate accounts for insurance purposes. So, if you have an
individual account for $100K, your spouse has an individual account for
$100K, and you have a joint account for $100K POD to a niece, then you've
just lost $100K in insurance because of that POD clause (each individual
already used up their $100K in insurance). See Example 13 in the FDIC
detail page (already cited):
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits...tegories4.html

Also, similarly titled Totten trusts and (real) revocable trusts are
aggregated together in counting assets towards the $100K limit.

Ack.

Mark Freeland
BnetOnewsX[at]sbcglobal.net

zxcvbob wrote:
- quote -

Ok, I looked at that. $600K in one account is titled "Husband and Wife
POD 3 Children". If the wording is set so on one spouse's death, the
$300K passes to the kids, that can work, but if it's on the second
death, this is a problem which, if I recall correctly, was the issue
with the account as worded by the OP of this thread. The bottom line is
there is $100K insurance for each POD beneficiary. If there are enough
beneficiaries, or little enough cash, this can work. I still ask, what's
wrong with using brokered CDs and keeping the amounts well under the $100k?

JOE

$250K for retirement accounts under recent 2006 law.
Most other accounts remained the same.


http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2006/pr06029.html

bo peep wrote:
- quote -


It's more complicated than that. My dad is worried because all his
money is in jumbo CD's at Washington Mutual, Countrywide, etc. So he
had me look up the FDIC rules. An oversimplified summary is a POD
account (has a beneficial) is considered to be a revocable trust, and is
insured for $100K *per qualified* beneficiary. (qualified means a son,
daughter, father, mother, grandchild, grandparent, or sibling.)

There's an example in this brochure where a husband and wife can get
$10000000 combined coverage with 4 accounts, none of them are retirement
accounts. Look at page 13:

http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insured/yid.pdf

Best regards,
Bob

On Aug 22, 3:01 pm, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...[at]nospam.com> wrote:
- quote -

Savings and checking accounts are still only insured to $100k. It is
just the *retirement* accounts that have increased to $250k. There are
a heap of examples at http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits.../examples.html

John Cowart

joetaxpayer wrote:
- quote -

Good idea, so I went back and asked to get this in writing yesterday.
The same person was not working, so I got someone else, with a
completely different story. Now it's $100k per titled account and, get
this, per unique beneficiaries named. The example given by the bank
person was that my wife and I would get $100k of coverage for an account
titled in my name only, $100k for a joint account, and $100k for an
account titled in her name only. Assuming that these accounts all had
the other spouse as beneficiary, I could then open a fourth account
with, say, my son as beneficiary and get an additional $100k in coverage
for that account because the beneficiary changed.

Not surprisingly, they could not provide me with this policy in writing,
even after assuring me that it was in one of their pamphlets, though
after searching they could not locate it. Supposedly they will email
the poilcy to me. In the meantime, I'm going to at least switch
branches, but maybe I should switch banks... You would think that this
would be a topic the bank would drill into its employees' heads.

-Will

- quote -

There's always a risk second guessing the experts. He's employed by the
bank, he must know what he's talking about, no? Well, I just looked at
the FDIC website, you'd think a change of this magnitude would make
their site, at least on the press release page. For fun, I'd go back and
ask him to put it in writing, I'd bet he'd not be so quick to do it.
JOE

hobnobre[at]webtv.net (H B) writes:

- quote -

Virtually all individual investors place "non-competitive bids" for
Treasury bills, notes, and bonds rather than bidding a minimum yield.
This means (a) you're guaranteed to get the security you asked for,
and (b) you'll get approximately the auction's average yield.

- quote -

Maybe. But pretty much anyone buying them either uses the Treasury's
"Treasury Direct" program or uses a brokerage account at their
favorite broker. At least some brokers (Fidelity is one) levy no
commission on Treasuries bought at auction (don't know how much of a
markup they build in, though).

- quote -

Depends on your definition of "easy". Between Treasury Direct and
brokers, I feel T-Bills, Notes, and Bonds are pretty easy to purchase
as well.

- quote -

T-Bills, Notes, and Bonds can be bought within any brokerage account
and therefore can be in IRAs and 401(k)s. Savings bonds, however,
cannot be.

--
Rich Carreiro rlc-news[at]rlcarr.com

joetaxpayer wrote:
- quote -

<snip
- quote -

Speaking of which, I just opened a new Money Market account at Compass
Bank today. The clerk tells me that accounts at the bank are FDIC
insured to $200k per individual. The sign on his desk said $100k. When
I questioned him about this, he said the limit had just changed. I made
sure he understood the question - per individual, not per couple, not
for IRAs. Any truth to this?

-Will

Can you clarify how to buy t-bills or other treasuries other than I and
EE bonds? I looked over the Treasury site but how do you know how much
to bid for them? Can you just go through banks and ask what they are
charging for them? What's in it for the banks?

Are I and EE bonds the only kind that are easy to purchase?

They can be used for 401K and IRA's? Thanks so much.

makbo2[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

Mark - FDIC insures an individual's account (let me skip the $250K IRA
for this reply) to $100K. The T-Bill has the direct guarantee of the
treasury, as opposed to the FDIC. The FDIC can make you wait while they
count the bank's money. A one year T-Bill will always cash out to face
value. My sarcasm was aimed at a bank clerk who I heard talking to a
customer. She wanted a T-bill, which had the slight tax advantage for
state tax, but at the time had a higher yield than the 1 year CD anyway.
And the bank had that available, they offered the transaction as a
service. The clerk said 'you know the CD is FDIC insured, the T-Bill has
no insurance'. I wouldn't want to do business with anyone who would
mislead like that. Up to the 100K, I wouldn't push either, let the
customer choose, but the clerk's misleading remark bothered me. I hope
that clarifies my post.
JOE

joetaxpayer wrote:
[...]
- quote -

Pardon my naiveté, but I don't understand the implications above. Why
are treasuries (BTW which are you referring to: U.S. Treasury bills,
notes, or bonds) obviously so much better that I would have to
"insist" on bank CD's instead? Why would I want to stop doing
business with a bank just because they point out the existence of
FDIC? (I'm guessing on the latter item that you are just trying to
point out that in both cases your money is ultimately guaranteed by
the same governmental entity?)

-Mark Bole

In article
<1187201847.663854.272570[at]22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> ,
rick303[at]hotmail.com says...
- quote -


- quote -


It also shows that the biggest danger to your financial
prosperity and stability is (drum-roll, please...) People Whom
You Personally Know.

Not some random thug jumping out of an alley. But, rather, an
acquaintance, "friend," spouse, sex-partner, etc, who figured out
that you have something they want. And who have some ideas about
your vulnerabilities. Plus, of course, regular access to you
and your stuff.

And, speaking of "safe"... Why wasn't that dude's gold coin
stash IN one?


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

On Aug 14, 3:49 pm, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...[at]nospam.com> wrote:
- quote -

Today I read S&P downgraded some money market funds because they
held some subprime paper.
Yesterday I heard some guys gold coin stash was stolen by his
housekeeper.
Shows nothing is absolutely safe.

In article <5ibg74F3nkbvuU1[at]mid.individual.net> , willb[at]jbour.nl
says...
- quote -


My understanding is that, the FDIC insurance has a limit of $100K
per person.

The elderly widow already had a CD in her own name for $100K. So
that was all the FDIC owed her personally at the time of the bank
failure.

Her now-dead husband also had a similar CD, with survivorship
rights to her.

The question in the story was about whether the dead husband's
CD would be covered for reimbursement to her personally. Since
it was over her per-person FDIC limit.

So the conclusion of the story was that, she received her
husband's CD money (in addition to her own), since he was still
alive (and thus insured) at the moment of the official bank
closing (3 PM on a business day.) He died several hours later,
but, as of the 3PM closure, he was officially granted his own
reimbursement (even if the paperwork wasn't done yet.)

The issue wasn't about cancelling FDIC coverage just because one
spouse on the account died. But, rather, about how the timing of
the death related to the per-person limit.

Bob and Jane are married, both having $100K in the bank. Then,
that bank goes under, with an FDIC coverage limit of $100K each.
They are both officially due their reimbursements at 3PM. Then,
Bob kicks the bucket hours later. Jane is still legally entitled
to his $100K as an inheritance. Even though her own FDIC limit
was filled with her own money.

The money in their joint checking and savings accounts is lost.
Because it was over the $100K per-person limit. And that would
have happened even if Bob were still alive.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

- quote -

went under that the S&L counterpart to FDIC went bankrupt
and the federal government under Bush 41 cleaned them
up with $150 billion.

Bank-based IRAs are insured to $250K.