http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#63211 In June congress passed H.R. 1106 for Banks and Credit Unions extending the $250,000 FDIC limit to Dec 31, 2013, and was signed by the President. H.R. 786 is still pending.... 63211@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:03:36 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#62902 Let's get this moving forward. Call your congressperson today.... 62902@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:41:38 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#62582 From the FDIC website that you quoted earlier: "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." The FDIC calculator confirms that the example given on the Ally Bank website is correct: https://www.fdic.gov/edie/calculator.html In any case, can someone address my original question about what the big deal is? Just open more accounts (perhaps in a different bank if needed) if you think the limit is too low?... 62582@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:17:29 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#62578 regardless of what Ally is trying to feed the public, the rules clearly state that the $250,000 limit applies to each depositor's total deposits. Jount accounts do not change that rule. The only exception is IRA accounts. These are insured outside of the FDIC limits. Revocable trusts or Payable on Death accounts can be covered for significantly more but this is because there are multiple "owners" on the account. Be very careful of what any bank tells you. If it all falls down around their ears they are not accountable for anything they said.... 62578@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:14:29 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#62575 UPDATE: The per depositor, per bank rule isn't entirely true. This example clearly shows that 2 people can be insured for more than $500,000 ($250,000 each) at a single bank by having multiple accounts: http://www.ally.com/fdic.html... 62575@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:38:15 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#62573 Ok, thanks for the clarification. Update my previous post and replace "account" with "bank." I still don't see what the big deal is. Just use multiple banks? You should be diversifying your money anyway?... 62573@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:16:58 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#62393 No Neil, the basic insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank. That means the TOTAL deposits for an individual in a single bank are insured up to $250,000. If you have one account with $250,000 you are maxed out. If you have two or more accounts the total insurance is $250,000 regardless of how many accounts you have. http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insured/basics.html If there are two people on the account then the maximum is $500,000. And three is $750,000 and so on. If the insurance increase is not extended we will all find ourselves back at $100,000 on Jan 1, 2010.... 62393@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:47:53 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#62349 Hello, I'm trying to understand the comments that say this bill is "needed." The FDIC coverage applies to each account, not on a per person basis. Under the old limit ($100,000) you can still have $200,000 ($100,000 in each) in two different accounts and it is fully FDIC insured. This is because FDIC insurance is computed on a PER ACCOUNT basis. Is it really a big deal to break your $200,000 into 2 accounts under the old system to remain fully FDIC insured? Am I missing something?... 62349@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:15:42 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#59082 The increase was made right after Indymac failed due to fraud & leaks by Schummer. They need to backdate the increase in coverage to cover Indymac in July 2008!!!... 59082@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 20 May 2009 20:00:03 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#56370 When will this bill come up for a vote?... 56370@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:19:55 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53656 William, maplight.org says HR 786 has cleared committee, and is now on the calender, not sure when it comes up for a vote.Hope this helps.... 53656@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:18:05 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53600 Does anyone know when this bill will go to Congress for a vote, or it's current status?... 53600@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:58:22 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53315 Small business owner, I need this protection to stay in business, please support HR 786.... 53315@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:09:25 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53311 I support HR 786, does anyone know when it will go to the congress for a vote?... 53311@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:02:28 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53258 I also support HR 786, like BusGuy said, and others, write your Reps in Wash to support this much needed ligislation. It will help everyone.... 53258@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:32:05 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53186 H.R. 786 is long overdue. please write your congressmen/senators to support this long overdue legistratiuon. We must protect our businesses and retirees in these difficult times.... 53186@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:33:02 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53183 Increase in FDIC Insurance is long overdue. Retirees and businesses need this added protection. It doesn\'t matter who sponsored it, let your Reps know to please support it. Thank You.... 53183@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:12:44 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53164 I think the bill is a good bill. But I would try not to advertise the connection with Barney Frank. He is no money wizard to say the least.... 53164@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:35:59 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#53117 I think Rep Barney Frank introduced this bill. Sounds good to me, when will it go for a vote?c9... 53117@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:12:23 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#52643 The current increase will expire at the end of 2009, HR 786 will make the $250,000 coverage permanent. This will benefit business and the general population alike. Please write your congressman to support this Bill.... 52643@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:12:14 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_786.html#52022 I'm not clear on this thing, wasn't this part of the TARP that Obama just signed?... 52022@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:46:22 EST