It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The warning, stemming from a recent federal appeals court ruling surrounding customer funds lost during the 2007 collapse of Chicago futures broker Sentinel, indicates that individuals who lose deposited funds because a financial institution improperly manages that money, even if those funds are supposed to be “segregated” from other operations of the firm, are essentially left with no recourse if the firm goes belly-up. According to the court, a misallocation of those customer funds, “is not, on its own, sufficient to rule as a matter of law that Sentinel acted ‘with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud’ its customers.”
Originally posted by Connman
They are not at fault for spending your money.
Now that`s pathetic and so wrong. Just proves without doubt the court system needs fixed above everything else Can`t look to the courts for defending our rights and this surely should prove it`s very flawed and corrupt not looking out for the citizens but also another defender of corrupt businesses.
Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Okay, I am confused here. I understand this concept, I suppose, but doesn't that mean that FDIC insurance for bank accounts of up to 100,000 dollars would kick in?
Checking Accounts (including money market deposit accounts)
Savings Accounts (including passbook accounts)
Certificates of Deposit
Investments in mutual funds (stock, bond or money market mutual funds), whether purchased from a bank, brokerage or dealer
Annuities (underwritten by insurance companies, but sold at some banks)
Stocks, bonds, Treasury securities or other investment products, whether purchased through a bank or a broker/dealer
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
It's a crappy verdict, because these funded were being used for the wrong purpose.
But, investing your money in stocks, bonds, commodities, futures never had the same protections as opening a savings account or share draft account.....these investments are buyer beware.
Not really surprising, either, that the banksters get first crack at recouping their money...rightly or wrongly.
Originally posted by Wetpaint72
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
I agree with your bank run theory, but...
When the scales are this much out of balance you can rest assured this message will not get out to the gen pop.
The money will be adequate to insure that this remains under wraps.
It was probably assured and secured before any questionable act even occurred. The bases are always covered even before the game begins. All we can do is watch it play out from the sidelines.
Domestic outsourcing and offshoring share most risk characteristics. However, the more complicated chain of control incurred when offshoring financial services and related data may create new risks when compared to domestic outsourcing. Offshoring also introduces an element of country risk to the outsourcing process. In particular, geographic distance from the function and timing lags in reporting heighten the potential risk exposures. Significant offshoring risk areas include:
Country Risk: political, socio-economic, or other factors may amplify any of the traditional outsourcing risks, including those listed below.
Operations/Transaction Risk: weak controls may affect customer privacy.
Compliance Risk: offshore vendors may not have adequate privacy regulations.
Strategic Risk: different country laws may not protect "trade secrets."
Credit Risk: a vendor may not be able to fulfill its contract due to financial losses.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
The Reuters headline seemed okay, it's the SHTFplan.com headline that is wrong. Technically the FDIC is still covering commercial bank deposits. Of course, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act does put commercial bank deposits at risk, since it lets banks merge with brokerages and insurance companies. The FDIC managed to cover accounts during the first financial collapse, I don't think they will be able to the next go around, and lacking any financial reform (Dodd-Frank has all it's teeth pulled, courtesy of Republicans in Congress), there will certainly be another financial collapse.