News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Bizreader

09/07/15 10:57 PM

#434618 RE: fwh3334zeke #434616

I'm following now!
icon url

WithCatz

09/08/15 6:43 AM

#434641 RE: fwh3334zeke #434616

Eh FWH, go back and check your facts. I think you've got the recipient information wrong. The deposits went back to the original holders of the deposits. Not to the FDIC.

Think about it, you have $1m in deposits with a bank. The FDIC's exposure is $250/500k if the bank fails. The rules change, and the bank decides that all deposits of $1m are too 'expensive' for them to maintain.

So they tell the depositor that their business, of a $1m account, isn't cost-effective and to please withdraw and move their monies elsewhere.

Nowhere does the bank just give the FDIC that $1m.

(a) It's not theirs to give.
(b) While the FDIC rules and subsequent regulations may be the cause, it's not that the FDIC got the monies.

...Catz
icon url

investorhub123

09/08/15 11:26 AM

#434657 RE: fwh3334zeke #434616

Fwh,
The R203 off balance sheet is actually $165b
And the subragated amount listed on the FDIC receivership balance sheet shows $151b (I believe this was the deposit amount).