It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by litterbaux
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)
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?
Originally posted by andrewh7
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?
It's actually up to $250,000. The article posted by the OP is referring to a stock broker, not a bank. The FDIC covers all bank accounts. So, the OP's title is misleading.
The company placed a grossly outsized bet (more than $6 billion worth) on the health of the European debt market last year and when it went south, the firm "borrowed" money from the accounts of its customers to try and salvage its own losses. Most of the blame for those trades fell on its CEO (and ex-New Jersey governor) Jon Corzine, and while his reputation and firm are ruined, it seems he will escape any legal sanction. He could still face massive civil lawsuits or fines from regulators who have a lower standard than a criminal prosecution, but jail isn't in the cards.