digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at consumerist.com

10 Banks That Could Be Next To Go Under

consumerist.com — IndyMac bank going under probably has you wondering, is my bank next? Various analysts are predicted that hundreds of small and regional banks could collapse in the next year. Here's the top 10 list of the nation's most troubled banks...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cholesterolnews, on 07/17/2008, -8/+12this is frightening
    • PoliticalMan922, on 07/17/2008, -3/+4Yeah...It is incredibly frightening.
    • CobaltBlue, on 07/18/2008, -4/+5You are easily frightened.
    • n8r0n, on 07/18/2008, -7/+9How is this frightening?

      IndyMac went belly up due to mis-management and possible fraud by the execs. This has nothing to do with the current state of the economy.
      • DyceFreak, on 07/18/2008, -3/+2what about the mis-management and possible fraud by the execs of this nation which led us to this current economy?

        what about the additional 10 banks that might go under?

        People can't pay for these loans and they are being ignored by people like you.
      • xadhominemx, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2You could blame mismanagement, but IndyMac probably would not have gone under if not for the incredible irresponsibility of Chuck Schumer.
      • stagmire, on 07/18/2008, -1/+0"IndyMac probably would not have gone under if not for the incredible irresponsibility of Chuck Schumer."

        lol, your tool status is confirmed.
    • richmomz, on 07/18/2008, -3/+6In Capitalist America, the bank robs YOU!
    • naiku, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1The stocks are doing terrible but your money is fine....no need for a bank run.

      wamu looks like they could be bought up.
    • Elranzer, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Time to transfer my student loans to one of these banks!
      • saisumimen, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Oddly enough... no one likes to steal debt.
    • drewc1138, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Sorry to hijack the thread, but this is something that needs to be said because NO ONE is talking about it.

      This is driving me crazy. I work in a bank, and there is apparently NO ONE who understands the $100,000 FDIC insurance.

      You are insured up to $100,000 per depositor per institution. So you can have $100k in an individual account, $100K in an individual account with your spouse as a beneficiary, $100K in an individual account with each of your children as a beneficiary, each of your grandchildren as a beneficiary, each of your parents as a beneficiary, each of your grandparents as a beneficiary, each of your siblings as a beneficiary. And then you go into joint accounts, where it is insured per account owner per account beneficiary. So if you have a husband and wife with three kids as a beneficiary, that account ALONE is insured up to $600,000. As a matter of fact, if you had a family with that makeup, you could have FDIC in the millions if you structured it right. And it's not shady at all...completely legal.

      But the media doesn't say this...they would rather foster this terror that your money is going to disappear, because it keeps viewers tuned in.

      Does nobody have the journalistic integrity it takes to actually DO SOME RESEARCH?
      • bacon_skoda, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2so you are defining a depositor as not a person but the names on the account?

        the FDIC site only states:
        You are insured up to $100,000 per depositor per institution.

        There was an article from reuters that said one lady put her brother and mother into her account to insure $300k, then said the bank lied to her that the money was insured.
      • bacon_skoda, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1the above post is right, but not very clear.
        from suze orman's show, she explains that multiple accounts of different pay by death or beneficiary does work.
        but just simple joint accounts means 100k per person.
        but the pay by death and the beneficiary naming is real. if the person dies, the money will go to little suze if so named.

        roth IRA accounts have a 250K insurance.
  • sesstreets, on 07/17/2008, -3/+30And I'm in none of those.
    • Ajajadude, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5Same here. But, you never know...
    • Ryan2845, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6Not surprised, some of these banks are TINY.

      For example:
      "The State Bank of Lebo" has ONE branch location, in Lebo, KS which has a population of 961 people.
      I'm not sure that is quite on the same scale as IndyMac
  • vondrak, on 07/17/2008, -8/+105I'm not an economics major by any means, but doesn't this kind of speculation cause people to run to those banks and withdraw all their money thus causing the bank to go under faster?
    By no means am I saying the solution is to keep your money in a failing bank, I'm just wondering if this is more of a self fulfilling prophecy than a prediction.
    • buba1243, on 07/17/2008, -4/+30The solution is that the vast majority of people don't have more then 100,000 in the bank so they have no worries. If you have more then 100,000 in a bank account you are either stupid for not putting money somewhere you can get a good return or you can afford to lose it.
      • chicagospur, on 07/18/2008, -2/+10That's the problem. Most of their customers don't know that FDIC covers any investment under 100K. So the customers panic and pull their money. Then word gets around and the bank is done for.
      • Hangly, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5The FDIC was created 70 years ago to deal with individual banks failing, not an entire industry.
        There is only enough money to cover the first 1% of claimants. The rest are SOL.
      • logosx1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Where, pray tell, should I put money these days to get "a good return" on it other than the bank?
      • siszam, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1logosz1, we put money in silver and gold that we then take physical possession of. It has done better than the stock market and the banks by far.

        Stocks can plummet to zero. Gold and silver have never been at zero. Banks go under and you may have to wait weeks, months or years for your money. Day to day money can be kept at home. Money for food can be spent now to stock up long term. Long term money goes in metals.

        Did you see the article where other banks weren't taking the checks that failed banks used to reimburse customers? Most people can't live for months with no money.
    • TracerBulletNPI, on 07/18/2008, -4/+6@vondrak- To a certain extent yes, though sweeping the problem under the rug and pretending the banks aren't on weak footing doesn't really help. Something is going to give eventually. Culling the ranks, so to speak, could be beneficial. It'll suck for some people, but looking at it from an overall standpoint....

      @Buba- That's not really a solution to anything...

      Really the entire economic system needs to be reworked. First thing that should go would be this 10 to 1 fractional reserve system that inflates the currency every time a loan is issued... Then get rid of the fed and let markets rule. The checks and balances of a free market will put these wild swings in check. A asset backed currency would probably be good too... Just my opinion.
      • jabiggs3, on 07/18/2008, -3/+2I agree. The Fed needs to go, and markets must be allowed to operate free of government intervention. The fractional reserve system (the simple money multiplier effect) will be eliminated if you remove the central bank.
      • Risingashes, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8@jabiggs3 Whoever you have listened to in forming your opinion has either mislead you or you've misunderstood what they have said. Fractional banking is a mandated minimum level of reserves, getting rid of regulation would remove this minimum and would in fact increase the money multiplier.

        The multiplier was not the result of federal banks- federal banks were the result of the multiplier (amongst other reasons). The multiplier was caused by modern banking practices which allowed lent funds to be deposited back in to the system effectively increasing the money supply (this money can either be unspent loan proceeds, salary proceeds or sale proceeds- all but the first unable to be attributed as loaned money and therefore cannot be controlled).

        Federal banks are designed for the dual purpose of maintaining steady inflation (usually a goal of 2-3%) and curbing the severity of booms and busts that naturally occur in the economy (by slowing both booms and busts through interest rate manipulation by charging fees on mandated reserves). The problem recently is the huge amount of pressure that the executive branch has but on the Fed to provide them with loans in an effective boom time- leading to massive debt coming in to a bust (the consequences of which you are seeing the beginnings of now). The system isn't broken- the people in charge are.

        Getting rid of the Fed would compound the problems you are having and would endanger the future. The reason people that know better are pushing for this is that they know that it'll never be implemented because it makes no logical sense and will therefore be blocked- giving them the ability to say that their solution would have worked without actually having to be tested.

        I hope some of what I said was straight forward enough to make you question your views. If you want to read
      • stagmire, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2Risingashes: didn't you see that one video on ronpaul.com where the guy explains how the concept of charging interest is a conspiracy cooked up by the globalists and NAFTA?
    • kelmaster1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4"may the small banks be damned"
    • JeremyGrieves, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1That's why I chose to bury this article...as if that will make a difference now.
    • Hangly, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Please. Let's not pretend that media exposure is even remotely the cause of the problem.

      If someone's bank is about to fail, they deserve to know. Whether or not they withdraw their money is their own business.
    • necoates, on 07/18/2008, -3/+1Just because a bank loans out $100.00 does not mean they have $100.00 in the safe or in liquid assets. Its more like $10.00 in the bank for every $100.00 loaned out.

      So for all your money they are paying you 1, 2, maybe 3% interest on, they are turning around and charging 5 to 20% interest ten times over. Pretty slick for the bank, till everybody gets greedy.

      For a very good explanation of how our banking system works check out www.scamorbam/bankingscams.html
  • psysop, on 07/17/2008, -5/+10smash the piggy
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/17/2008, -1/+83Not to worry I converted all my money into gold, rice, and, 9mm rounds.
    • shutaro, on 07/17/2008, -0/+23Sound investments, all.
    • brbubba, on 07/18/2008, -0/+39Sweet. Can I come live in your cabin when all the banks go under? I can do laundry, dishes, and I am a good handyman. I'll try to bring two females with me, but I can't guarantee anything.
      • dupswapdrop, on 07/18/2008, -0/+9sure
      • USNavyBlue, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6I'll volunteer to be the first female. I can cook, sew, iron, can food, able to grow a pretty mean garden, I am pretty good at catching fish, and I have ammo to contribute too:)
    • dood, on 07/18/2008, -0/+18Gotta sleep some time.
    • mllawso, on 07/18/2008, -1/+49mm? That's good and all, but what are you going to do when you need food?
    • attackpanda, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2Congratulations, dup, you have everything you need for the Ron Paul gated community!
    • hobophobe, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Hah. I converted mine into guns that shoot golden rice. And FYI golden rice kills vegan werewolves in addition to being tasty and nutritious.
  • jayrok, on 07/17/2008, -13/+5What about blood and sperm banks for being filled with flawed DNA from many of the same people involved in this mess.
  • wilf_brim, on 07/18/2008, -8/+5Woohoo. No money in any of them. My mortgage is fixed, and my l3wt is in cash. I'm feeling OK right now.
  • Destrucci, on 07/18/2008, -16/+16Bury. Information like this is what causes panic and people to pull their money out. Just like oil speculation I call BS.
    • stealthc, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4Wow. How frail is an economic system if some ***** writing an article can bring it to its knees?
      • eryximachus, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Fractional reserve banking is like that.

        No bank that has operated under such a system can withstand a panic. There simply isn't enough money in the bank EVER to cover every single depositor trying to get their money out of the bank.

        So yes, fractional reserve banking is a frail economic system.
    • Hangly, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1Ah. So if your money was in one of those banks you would prefer that no one told you?
    • wsteele, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1If you had been paying attention to the financial markets you would see massive write-offs made by the larger institutions. Now, imagine financial institutions whose very existence is based on the creation of these debt assets. Many of the banks listed were likely created as lending institutions that were generating ARM loans that enabled people who had bad credit to take out loans that they now cannot afford. Many people are in foreclosure and these banks keep kicking the can down the road hoping for a bailout. It ain't gonna happen. In the meantime if you are in the market to own a home, keep your eye out and you may get one at a deep discount. If you are in financial trouble with a home you are financing, cut your losses. Don't get yourself in too deep.
  • Khast, on 07/18/2008, -1/+20:P Foreign currency....at the rate we are going, keeping cash under the mattress will only lose value. Keep Euros, Pounds, or even Canadian...at least if the US dollar fails, you still have something worth money.
    • unorginalityftw, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Euros, far more stable.
    • stealthc, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Foreign currencies are all paper too. They might not be racing to zero as fast as the USD, but you're still better off with some gold/silver.
    • Hangly, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2My money is in Yuan.

      And under my mattress.
  • zjbird, on 07/18/2008, -8/+12Congratulations! You've made the most boring top 10 list on digg so far!
  • chaserm, on 07/18/2008, -10/+7WAMU and Wells Fagro should be on that list.
    • CobaltBlue, on 07/18/2008, -0/+18Yeah, a second quarter profit of 1.75 Billion dollars almost always is a death knell.
    • allengeer, on 07/18/2008, -3/+8With a Texas Ratio of around 45, it shouldn't be on that list.
    • heystoopid, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Actually Wells Fargo is on the top of the list as it has some of the heaviest exposure to some very bad non performing debts in South America dating back over one hundred years when they went nuts in the early eighties during the time of Chairman Ronnie and have yet to move off that list since then !
  • richw, on 07/18/2008, -4/+6Good thing those are banks I've never heard of before. People should really be smarter than to put their money in banks who have no reputation at all. I'd feel safer putting my money in a safe in my house then putting it in a random bank I've never heard anything about before like Ameribank.
  • postaldave, on 07/18/2008, -5/+33is it me or is the media TRYING to run the economy into the ground.
    • dood, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3It's probably not just you, but a bank that's in good shape shouldn't fail just because some website or journalist says it might.
      • postaldave, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4i agree, but no bank has enough cash on hand to pay everyone on any single day. when they pick A BANK on the news you can crash a perfectly fine bank.

        one website no, but when everyone piles on one given bank you can take down any bank.
    • whataboutdave, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5Bad news makes good news.
    • tony23, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1It's not you.
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+2The media is finally waking up. If they had done so 6 years ago Bush wouldn't have been able to get away with all of this from the outset. This is the price we are paying for a trillion in loans to the Chinese to pay for Iraq, folks.

      Remember? That war that was supposed to be paid for by oil revenues?
  • frelk, on 07/18/2008, -3/+8Hopefully, this story will cause people to run to their banks and withdraw all their deposits for safety's sake... wait a minute.

    Remember that if you have less than 100,000 in your account its completely insured with the FDIC, which means you don't have to panic about your bank collapsing.
    • BionicPimp, on 07/18/2008, -1/+7For the most part, that's true, but there is a Perfect Storm scenario that is much more scary than you think. The FDIC is a Government owned Corporation. It has an Insurance fund of about $52 Billion dollars, which is accumulated from premiums paid by each of the insured banks. IndyMac is the largest bank failure in US history, but it's not the largest bank. Still, about 10% of the DIF fund was used to pay back the banks customers during the bailout.

      Now imagine if one or two of the *largest banks* in the US failed...They could easily exhaust all $52Billion dollars paying back banking customers. Once that fund is used up, they don't have any more money to pay back the people.

      Now, I assume that the Govt would simply print more money to put into the fund should that happen, but there still would be a period of time where some people would not have access to their money. That means some people would not be able to pay their rent on time, buy food, buy gas...etc.

      The FDIC is like the shocks in your car...it can handle the small bumps in the road, but it has a hard time with the potholes.


      "At the end of 2007, the DIF had a balance of $52 billion. Bank failures represent a cost to the DIF if the FDIC has to repay depositors from the Fund. The failure of IndyMac Bank in July 2008, one of the largest bank failures in US history, is projected by the FDIC to cost the DIF between $4 billion and $8 billion [8], or approximately 10% of the entire Deposit Insurance Fund." ( from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insur ...


    • dengzhi, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3unless the US govt collapses
  • DutchGuilder, on 07/18/2008, -4/+7In the big bust of the 1980's 1,500 US banks went under and yet we survived.
  • jakewastaken, on 07/18/2008, -5/+10Here's a list of the top 100 banks likely to go under. It was also generated using the Texas Ratio. I submitted it yesterday but nobody gave a damn. I guess the number 10 is just more exciting.

    http://www.geocities.com/tubeguy@rogers.com/troubl ...
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Unofficial_Secret ...
    • xcheats, on 07/18/2008, -3/+12Or maybe because the site is hosted on Geocities...
      • jakewastaken, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3I didn't host it, but its on a paid account so it should stand up to more abuse than the free ones. The information isn't any less valid because it wasn't made by ABC. Maybe I can ask the guy who made it to release his original excel sheet to google docs or something similar if its that offputting.
    • imakeholesinu, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Very interesting list. Especially with IndyMac rated 37th, it make me wonder how the other 36 banks are able to stay afloat. Especially the one I walk by whenever I go to lunch in STL.
  • NelsonR, on 07/18/2008, -5/+8Shhh! The government and Wall Street desire to keep this a secret. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be bailed out after the CEO's stole billions yet you the taxpayer will accept bad equity for repayment. The house of cards has fallen but our illustrious leaders are again at it with more giveaway programs with nobody having an inkling of when repayment will be a requirement. Face it, most elected officials are CROOKS and are in the cookie jar repeatedly without your basic knowledge. We are all saps to a corrupt governing system gone awry with no spending limits, no oversight, ear mark spending and the list is endless. Once Democracy had defining moments but of late it's cronyism and ME, ME, ME.
    • jpmoney03, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3You forgot to thank the government for creating Fannie and Freddie so that you could afford to get a 15 or 30 year loan instead of 5 year bubble loan.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1 And while he's at it he should thank the government for creating Fannie and Freddie which gave out so much easy mortgage money that they basically doubled the prices of homes in America.
      • jpmoney03, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1That was not just Fannie and Freddie, CMOs played a large part. When Fannie and Freddie were created there was not enough money available for banks to give out loans. Many people lost their homes when their 5 year bubble loan came due and there was no money at the bank to get issued another.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 07/18/2008, -1/+1"Shhh! The government and Wall Street desire to keep this a secret."
      Uh yeah, that's why stories like these are all over the MSM, jackass.
  • Fatherspirit, on 07/18/2008, -2/+4Hide The Money In A Jam Jar Under The Mattress! You Can't Go Wrong! :-)
    • KeillRandor, on 07/18/2008, -0/+0depends how much it's worth when you take it out again :p
  • McShr3dd3r, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3What a small hammer that guy has.
  • dizilbdog, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4When does the government go broke?
    • TheAbsintheHare, on 07/18/2008, -0/+8The government has been broke for a long time, hence the national debt.

      • xadhominemx, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2I don't think broke means what you think it means. If interest payments on any debt you owe are only a small fraction of your total income, then you are not, by any means, broke.

        Under your definition, almost everyone who has a mortgage is broke.
    • muckemuck, on 07/18/2008, -1/+4It doesn't.. it just prints more money - making the money you've saved up worth less.
      Inflation is a hidden tax.
  • merripen, on 07/18/2008, -2/+16Colorado Federal Savings Bank
    Eastern Savings Bank, FSB
    Integrity Bank
    Ameribank, Inc.
    First Priority Bank
    First Security National Bank
    Magnet Bank
    Security Pacific Bank
    First National Bank of Brookfield
    The State Bank of Lebo

    ABC news links their story to a word doc? Strange.
  • subarusqueege, on 07/18/2008, -0/+15Your 100k insurane is only good so long as they do not spend all the 56 billion they have to insure with. You can already wipe 10 billion off that since IndyMac
  • HeyArnold, on 07/18/2008, -4/+8FUD!
    that's all.
    digging down starts in 3, 2, 1....
    • tocsy, on 07/18/2008, -3/+1I have a theory. Whenever someone says "digg me down", the majority of the digg user base tries to "outsmart" them by digging them up. So, when you say "digg me down" or something to the same effect, it's like instant diggs.

      Of course, I'll be dugg down because most people will perceive this post as degrading to them.

      So go ahead, digg me down.
      • highlymodified, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Buried for original thinking
        :P
  • cadmiumpaint, on 07/18/2008, -1/+6The question is, once the bank goes under and the FDIC comes in to save the day, how long does it take for you to be able to access your money? Is this a potential Katrina kind of situation where you wait weeks and months for the Fed Gov to cut you a check?
    • jpmoney03, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Normally the Fed takes over before failure happens. There was a bank that failed in MN this year that the fed arranged a purchase by another bank and there was not a single day that the bank was closed.
  • minox, on 07/18/2008, -3/+6I hope the next bank to go under is BernieMac.
  • engrishGamer, on 07/18/2008, -7/+6This is the kind of speculation that directly leads to banks going under. In fact IndyMac went under because of that Senator who made the comment stating it could go under at any time, causing mass amounts of people to withdraw their money (and we all know banks don't keep enough money to fully ensure everyone). These are conditions these banks have probably been under for a number of years and it's best to not instigate a situation if the banks are currently serving their customers well. Speculation->paranoia->fear->DISASTER
    • muckemuck, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Yeah, it doesn't have anything to do with the bank making a bunch of boneheaded loans to people who were already overextended and the bank having far more debt then it could repay. Righto there, uh huh.
    • wsteele, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Yes Chuck Schumer is like Oprah Winfrey to the nations' financial decision makers. That was a far reaching scapegoat attempt made by members of Congress.
  • scoottie, on 07/18/2008, -7/+2***** if something bad happens, ie Iran goes nuclear, everything can "go under"
    • muckemuck, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1shhhh... don't even go there... you're starting to sound like this guy: http://tinyurl.com/5jl8uv
    • stealthc, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1How the hell could Iran "go nuclear?" They're ages away from building a bomb, assuming they were even trying to. According to the CIA and the IAEA (who has had numerous surprise inspections) Iran has jack in one hand and ***** in the other. The only threat in the Iran situation is the USA.
  • a8ksh4, on 07/18/2008, -1/+8"The good news is that all the banks are FDIC-insured, which means that up to the first $100,000 of your deposits are guaranteed by the federal government."

    So the bank goes under, my govt borrows n thousands of dollars from China to reimburse me, I pay back n thousands of dollars in additional taxes and funding for any useful federal programs gets cut to pay back china, and that's just the good news. Sweet!
    • digudown, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2You can help by not availing this guarantee ;)
    • jpmoney03, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Actually it is a fund of money that already exists that is not a part of the government. The FDIC is a company that isn't really a part of the government.
    • Hangly, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2Only the first 1% of claimants are insured.

      Have a nice day.
  • locojones, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Ugh, this is more media sensationalism trying to scare people. There are 8,000 banks in the country. It's not even a blip on the financial radar if 10 or even 100 of them go under.
    • RationalXubrnce, on 07/18/2008, -1/+2 Banks failing should not be a routine ho hum thing, it's indicative of a serious problem. There's a lot of bad mortgage paper out there and it's so spread around it's going to affect all sorts of pensions funds and financial institutions. This while thing is a huge mess.
  • KittySpark1es, on 07/18/2008, -0/+8Digg to bring these bank down quicker! Come on guys....digg effect! hahaha
  • whataboutdave, on 07/18/2008, -3/+1Posting a list like this makes it much more likely that these institutions will face "runs on the bank" and fail. This could well be a self-fulfilling prophesey.

    Awesome job, Consumerist. Still love you.
  • masterjjx, on 07/18/2008, -0/+9Never even heard of any of those banks
    • str1fe, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2I've heard of Ameribank, but not the others.
  • slyzxx, on 07/18/2008, -4/+2thats stupid posting a list that will cause panic
  • jrattner1, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1I Just pray Wachovia survives
  • Bannedx5, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1Buried. FUD.
  • Photokon, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4Another important thing to note about banks being in trouble is the percentage of "brokered deposits" for a bank. Indymac had something like 30%, and that is a lot of hot money. Some banks that are on the verge have upwards of 70% brokered deposits. Brokered deposits are deposits that are easily moved and the people share no ties to the bank, a la a community bank where everyone in the town banks at.
  • edwarddouglas, on 07/18/2008, -1/+3Why do so many people think you are insured 100k per account. You are not. You are only insured per title. To get above 100 you need to make accounts joint, in trust for, payable on death, etc.
  • mrzack, on 07/18/2008, -0/+15the Conspiracy theorists were correct.
    • RationalXubrnce, on 07/18/2008, -0/+7 Again.
    • stealthc, on 07/18/2008, -0/+9Being able to say "I told you so" doesn't feel as good as I thought it would.
    • Hangly, on 07/18/2008, -0/+5"Conspiracy theorist" is just the modern term for "pragmatic realist."
  • z28com, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2I wish my house was mortgaged with Colorado Federal Savings Bank so that I could simply "walk away". Now that would be sweet. Should I start opening checking accounts with all of these banks just for fun?
  • isimon42o, on 07/18/2008, -3/+2and the press coverage is what did them in...
  • chili555, on 07/18/2008, -2/+2You have more than $100,000 in an ordinary bank? Doing what? Getting 1.5% savings interest? For crying out loud, go to Schwab or Etrade and buy a bond. Triple your income and now you have $500,000 SIPC protection. Banks are for your checking account, to pay the electric bill, not for the big money.
    • Hangly, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1Or better yet, speculate in oil and make other people suffer!
  • SiSurfer, on 07/18/2008, -2/+3Oddly appropriate that the "Texas-ratio" is a measurement of how ***** you are
  • Chalks777, on 07/18/2008, -1/+5Just so you know, you can _easily_ have more than $100,000 insured by the FDIC at a single bank:
    acct 1, your name, insured $100k
    acct 2, wife's name, $100k
    acct 3, your name and wife's name, $200k
    IRA, your name, $250k
    IRA, wife's name, $250k

    That's $900,000 insured by the FDIC. You can get more insured at a single bank by putting POD to your children on the accounts.
    • trafficlight, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6I wish i had $900,000 to secure...
    • Pic0, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1I have this problem often!

      I'm running out of banks!
  • jpmoney03, on 07/18/2008, -1/+6The money multiplier effect must exist unless you plan to do away with credit completely. It is caused when I deposit money in a bank and then the bank turns around and borrows it to somebody else. Eventually that money ends up at another bank which then turns around and loans it out again. The only way to remove the money multiplier effect is to get rid of lending completely.
    • jpmoney03, on 07/18/2008, -0/+4This is in the wrong spot.
    • macman2k, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1If you lend me $5 there is no money multiplier effect. You lose 5 and I gain 5. The only way to "multiply money" is for you to print $5 and then lend it to me. Banks would simply provide a means of coordinating people with money with people who need to borrow. You would put money in a CD that you couldn't touch until after the money was repaid by the person the bank lent it to. The bank makes a profit on the spread between what they pay you and what they lend it at.
  • kolobcreek, on 07/18/2008, -0/+6Is anyone else tired of these ivy league losers exercising gross negligence then getting their ivy league buddies in government to make us foot the bill?

    the people responsible need to be put in prison or where ever it is they put rich people.
  • luken7, on 07/18/2008, -2/+1You do realize that on average, between six and ten banks fail every year anyway ...sorry, no news here, just paranoia and news hype. Something to sell advertising
    • robertmules, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0The markets are set to sell off at the open this morning as the Street reacts to earnings reports from Wachovia (NYSE:WB), American Express (NYSE:AXP) , Apple (Nasdaq:AAPL) and Texas Instruments (NYSE:TXI) disappoint. Get more by just logging in at http://www.smallcappulse.com/index.php/commentary/ ...
  • alphaleader, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1w00t, none of them are mine.
  • elk1, on 07/18/2008, -0/+3Let's just hope Schumer doesn't doom any of them to the same fate he inflicted upon Indymac. As much as IMB was in a bad place, there isn't a bank out there that could survive a run on it's assets like he set off.
  • Thor, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Good.

    Maybe once a few banks go under and the gov't is on the hook for the deposits the gov't will finally start to apply the law properly.

    Of course this will never happen due to a number of people with more than 100K deposited in these hill billy banks would loose money too.
  • paulmer2003, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Bank of America ftw :D
    • Tasach, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1There are no safe banks, unless your bank is too big to fail.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1es muy bien.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.