Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Warning: Get Your Money Out: “All Legal Bank Deposit Protections Are Now Officially Gone”

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by thepupils
 


people do need to manage their own money and would be wise to get it out of any investment bank or institution.

i pulled everything out of those types of institutions long ago.



In tenessee, where my grandma lives, people don't use banks for savings.
They don't trust banks period. (Andrew Jackson was from there & beat the banks)
They bury their money. You don't go wandering around on people's property. They shoot first, & ask questions later.

They don't have this problem like they do in Chicago.




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by thepupils
 


well that's one way of securing the assets.


i think people should really get their money in safe assets and or credit unions and way out of the big bankster institutions. they have shown time and time again they cannot be trusted and won't be held accountable either.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
If you are using a bank to store large amounts of cash, your money is rotting while making the bank rich. Don't do that.

However, and pertinent to this case, investing your money is a risky proposition. You don't get the indemnity you get with the FDIC (up to their limit of what, 150k?)

I would say that, from my ultraconservative point of view, highly insured properties are the way to invest They provide a modest increase in value if you properly invest back in, while providing a monthly cash flow when rented. INsure them so that you don't suffer total loss in a tragedy.

I am not a fan of investing. Of course, I am only speculative when it doesn't involve money. Then again, if i were one of the poor saps left out in this deal, I may take up a shooting rampage (or at least put a brick through someones window).



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

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.


That's right. But also, banks can and do have their own bank visitors who will come and advise on current investments, I had one such person some time ago, he was rubbish, and I lost half of the advised investment before I pulled it. Banks and investment brokers are very cozy, and there has to be a legality there somewhere. Your high street bank branch has no input to the shenannigans of the corporate bank.
There is other 'stuff', I know for a fact that there are banking 'think tanks' on a regular/weekly basis conducted, not in the corporate premises, not in the branches, but in hotels all over the country, what are they all about? a money launder comes to mind, where better!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
What happened with the Futures Trading Firms (Futures Commission Merchants or FCMs) was not a problem with the holding banks but rather with misappropriation and mismanagement of the "customer segregated funds" by the firm. The exchanges and CFTC need to come up with a plan similar to the protection offered to securities accounts (like bank protections for stock brokerage accounts).



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a futures broker is not your local bank

I have enough in my checking acct to pay bills, my real money is spread over 10 institutions

I don't recommend putting cash under your mattress over this



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
What happened with the Futures Trading Firms (Futures Commission Merchants or FCMs) was not a problem with the holding banks but rather with misappropriation and mismanagement of the "customer segregated funds" by the firm. The exchanges and CFTC need to come up with a plan similar to the protection offered to securities accounts (like bank protections for stock brokerage accounts).


we loose either way whether we loose directly or through taxes going up to pay for the banksters robbery efforts.

it's a total corrupted system on the upper level and can only be fixed by starting over with regs and new people. that goes for politicians and judges as well as bankers.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
A few of my impressions on this:

If your still in the markets you're insane. Highly manipulated, and zero safe guards for the little investor.

If you think the FDIC has the funds to cover if there is widespread collapse then enjoy watching your money get sucked up by some too big to fail.


As to Glass-Steagall, it wasn't just the GOP (although 207 did), 155 Democrats voted to repeal that bill. Yes, Gramm-Leach-Bliley are Republicans, but Clinton signed it. Clinton also stated: "This is a day we can celebrate as an American Day"...he also praised Congress for it's bipartisan support of the legislation, said it was a victory for free markets and consumer protection.


I took a hit getting my money out in 2009, but I am glad I did.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
What happened with the Futures Trading Firms (Futures Commission Merchants or FCMs) was not a problem with the holding banks but rather with misappropriation and mismanagement of the "customer segregated funds" by the firm. The exchanges and CFTC need to come up with a plan similar to the protection offered to securities accounts (like bank protections for stock brokerage accounts).


we loose either way whether we loose directly or through taxes going up to pay for the banksters robbery efforts.

it's a total corrupted system on the upper level and can only be fixed by starting over with regs and new people. that goes for politicians and judges as well as bankers.


Dead On! It's not just the banisters, it's banks,politicians,& judges.
Get a new politician, nothing changes, supreme court judges last a lifting? Hmmm. Wonder why.

It's the good ole trifecta. Get rid of one, there's still two more. Get rid of the bankers & old politicians, guess what?
The old cronnie that's worn the powdered wig for the last 60yrs he's still alive and will rule in the pasts favor.

Take em all out is the only way for change.

(unfortunately, easier said than done)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


well with Glass-Steagall going out the window it was in no way American day, maybe Americans getting it from behind day. the clintons are in deep so no surprise they enjoyed screwing everyone over on that day either.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I dont think they were eligible for FDIC funds as a futures broker but I may have missed something in the court case.

FDIC

Seems that the limit is still $250k also.



What is a bank failure?
A bank failure is the closing of a bank by a federal or state banking regulatory agency. Generally, a bank is closed when it is unable to meet its obligations to depositors and others. This brochure deals with the failure of “insured banks.” The term “insured bank” means a bank insured by FDIC, including banks chartered by the federal government as well as most banks chartered by the state governments. An insured bank must display an official FDIC sign at each teller _

What is FDIC’s role in a bank failure?
In the event of a bank failure, the FDIC acts in two capacities. First, as the insurer of the bank’s deposits, the FDIC pays insurance to the depositors up to the insurance limit. Second, the FDIC, as the “Receiver” of the failed bank, assumes the task of selling/collecting the assets of the failed bank and settling its debts, including claims for deposits in excess of the insured limit.

What is the purpose of FDIC deposit insurance?
The FDIC protects depositors' funds in the unlikely event of the financial failure of their bank or savings institution. FDIC deposit insurance covers the balance of each depositor's account, dollar-for-dollar, up to the insurance limit, including principal and any accrued interest through the date of the insured bank's closing.

What is the FDIC insurance amount?
The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each ownership category. This includes principal and accrued interest and applies to all depositors of an insured bank.

Deposits in separate branches of an insured bank are not separately insured. Deposits in one insured bank are insured separately from deposits in another insured bank.

Deposits maintained in different categories of legal ownership at the same bank can be separately insured. Therefore, it is possible to have deposits of more than $250,000 at one insured bank and still be fully insured. For more information on deposit insurance coverage, see the FDIC’s brochure “Your Insured Deposits” which can be accessed at www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insured

Who does the FDIC insure?
Any person or entity can have FDIC insurance on a deposit. A depositor does not have to be a citizen, or even a resident of the United States. FDIC insurance only protects depositors, although some depositors may also be creditors or shareholders of an insured bank.

What does FDIC deposit insurance cover?
FDIC insurance covers deposits received at an insured bank. Types of deposit products include checking, NOW, and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts (MMDA), and time deposits such as certificates of deposit (CDs).



Not FDIC-Insured

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



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


no they're not entitled to according to the rules of that insurance. which means if the bank squanders it away you are SOL and they walk away with all the funds free and clear for the most part or at least plenty to make it lucrative for them.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
banks have been sneaking their futures from their investment parts to the public, they want their gambling to be covered as well



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


I would guess that's why all securities come with a statement "Not FDIC Insured" right?

I thought the list of what they do cover very concise.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

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?


No because these were not deposits into a checking or savings account. These were futures, stocks and other investments that were being played with. The title is misleading but the ruling is still a bit interesting.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
The ruling pretty much follows the law to the letter, the feds are not on the hook for this. I have no money, don't even have a bank account, I handle all of my transactions in cash. Yeah I don't earn anything on what I manage to put away, but I don't lose it either. To the guy from Tennessee, I am thinking you and I are probably related, not that it is a good thought from either direction. My family put the fun in dysfunctional.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
This is exactly why I'm taking my money out of my 401k. I just left my job and when I called, they were insistant on me rolling it into an IRA account. I have no faith in this system anymore so I'm going to use the money towards prepping and precious metals.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
This is exactly why I'm taking my money out of my 401k. I just left my job and when I called, they were insistant on me rolling it into an IRA account. I have no faith in this system anymore so I'm going to use the money towards prepping and precious metals.


In the USA the money you take from a 401(k) will face a 10% penalty come tax time, just pleas keep that in mind. So make sure your prep an investments make that up. Something I remember from taking mine in 1996, and of course now from doing taxes. Wish I would of known then what I do now.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Not sure if this was mentioned yet, I didn't read everyone's posts.

They came for social security, they got it.

They came for wall street, they got it.

Now they are coming for your 401k.

Writing is on the wall folks. They don't want the 20k in your bank account, they don't want the 10k in your checking. They want the 300k in your 401k.

Edit: Oh now I look like a moron cuz you guys were just talking about this in the few previous posts. You are right!
edit on 14-8-2012 by litterbaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wardk28
This is exactly why I'm taking my money out of my 401k. I just left my job and when I called, they were insistant on me rolling it into an IRA account. I have no faith in this system anymore so I'm going to use the money towards prepping and precious metals.


probably a wise choice even with the 10% penalty. in know i did the same thing several years ago and haven't regretted it. i think people with money/investments in the too big to fail corporations should be looking into alternatives for their funds. several have already shown us what happens when they steal your money legally and get away with it.

i'm not advocating people do these things with their money, but just thought it would be wise to keep a very close eye on things and have a plan B for your investments.





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join