Why is FDIC the ONLY insurance that does NOT have to give you a disclosure of the value of insurance?? The bank knows how your account is set up. It post a monthly statement that shows interest earned and calculates balances daily, but can't post the amount of insurance and the amount that is not insured on your bank statement?? Many people think every account holder was insured for 100,000.00 But the insurance amount is calculated on the way the account is set up. If you had a living trust with say 500,000.00 as a husband and wife, many people do not realize that FDIC does not recognize husband or wife as insured on this type of account even though they are the owners and even while they are still living. The only ones insured on this type of account are their beneficiaries. So if you had two beneficiaries, each one gets 100,000.00 of ins. from each owner, so you would only have 400,000.00 of insurance. You are now uninsured for 100,000.00. If one of the owners dies and you don't go back to bank and reorganize your accounts with more beneficiaries, you now have only 200,000.oo and you are now 300,000.00 uninsured. If you add more beneficiaries so you think you will have more insurance think again! The FDIC only recognizes certain types of family members and does not recognize non family beneficiaries. Plus you have to redo your "living trust". This is how so many people lost money! Most of the banks mis-guide the account holders because they don't know how FDIC works, leading customers to believe they have adequate insurance. And if one of the account holders died and you did not go back to bank and redirect your money in another way, you end up with only half as much insurance on the beneficiaries without realizing it. You could have a business account and not all owners would be insured. All account holders are not created and covered equally by FDIC rules. Most bank employee's don't know all the rules and were not allowed even to help you set your accounts to properly insure your money. Pre July 08, FDIC insurance was buyer beware! There were no FDIC calculators. No one new yet, because big banks had not closed and had not been tested yet. I even had a bank manager after July 08 tell me I had more FDIC insurance than what I found was really FDIC insured on my accounts. So why is FDIC insurance exempt from laws that make other insurance companies inform you of your insurance coverages?? All insurance companies, home, auto, life, and annuities must give you a policy with disclosures of your limits, values, coverages and exclusions! This exemption seems to be a deliberate way to mislead and give false security to the public as to the value of haveing their money in the bank with FDIC Insurance! The rules and regulations on FDIC Insurance was not clear and understood and actually hidden pre July 08 and if they were going to raise FDIC Insurance for other bank holders after IndyMac and after learning of these unfair practices and inadequate insurance. It only seems fair that IndyMac customers who disclosed these unfair practices should also reap the reward of the higher insurance levels. I would still like to know why Banks and FDIC Ins. are not required by law to disclose the exact amount of insurance on bank accounts???????? This seems like a very UNFAIR PRACICE to me!! No other insurance company could get away with! We should not all have to be put through a math and legal quiz to an FDIC calculator on a web site to know if we have adequate insurance on our life savings!!
ronaldlbucell
From: RONALD L. BUCELL 12/10/2009
Lady Lake, FL 32159
To: -->> Congress-people ( Congresswomen & Congressmen )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Please vote yes to make FDIC insurance of 250K retroactive to the date of the loss by Indymac
depoitors. This amendment is to be presented by Jane Harman's office, on or about 12/8-10/2009.
***** It's about fairness !!!
Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for
H.R. 4173 - Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009
Harman (CA) #238
Would allow depositors in any institution for which the FDIC was appointed as receiver or conservator on July 11, 2008 (IndyMAC) to be compensated for uninsured deposits up to the new FDIC insurance limit of $250,000.
Harman (CA) #239
Would allow depositors of any institution for which the FDIC was appointed receiver or conservator on July 11, 2008 (IndyMAC) to be compensated for uninsured deposits up to the new FDIC insurance limit of $250,000. The insurance would be offset with TARP funds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday I wrote regarding the above subject and will include a copy of the letter in this correspondence that follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE THE DEPOITORS, CREATED THE BUSINESS'S, THE JOBS AND THE CAPITAL, AND THEN INTRUSTED OUR MONIES INTO BANKS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REGULATED AS REQUIRED BY LAW. AND BECAUSE THE AGENCIES DID NOT WATCH OVER THE BANKS AS WAS/IS REQUIRED BY LAW, (THE BANKS, THE BROKERS, MORTGAGE BUYERS WERE ALLOWED TO BREAK THESE LAWS) WHICH CAUSED CAUSED THE FAILURE AT INDYMAC.
And when this failure at Inidymac occured it became appearant to the government that the FDIC coverage of 100K was not sufficient and should be permanantly changed to 250K per eligible account/depositor.
Therefore it would only be just to make the new coverage retroactive to cover the Indymac depositors.
If you and others vote yes to do this ( using TARP) monies I promise to put the monies back into the economy.
A Plea for help !!!
Not only was I an Indymac depositor (for business use & for personal future retirement savings) who lost 167,000.00 in monies deemed uninsured,
- but I was a small business owner, whom has started 5 successful different business over
over the last 30 plus years and whom has created and employed 100+ workers over that
time frame.
- as a result i have had to close my current businesses and can no longer employ workers.
- I have never asked for or taken ( nor would I ) any public assistance or government monies
of any kind nor would I.
- I and my wife now drive a 16 year old van and clip coupons and sell things on ebay to get by.
- As required by law, i I have declared & paid taxes on interest earned on paper
( Principal and Interest on monies that I have not and will never see ).
Kind of Ironic, that you have to pay taxes on Interest credited to an an account whose
balance was reduced by 167,000.00 ( which was more than 10x the amount of interest earned)
- Before opening the account I was told by Indymac supervisor and also by a supervisor
at the FDIC (whom i called prior) that I plus all named ITF (in trust for's) would each receive 100k insurance coverage. Unfortunately this is incorrect, (as i learned from a newly created FDIC calculator program that did not exist prior) when the person whose account it is names ITF's then that person no longer counts as one of the names eligible for 100k insurance.
-----------------------
- And some how by sheer luck the buyers of the indymac bank paid a price equal to an amount that just covered the 50% advance paid out to depositors. How would FDIC officals know immediately after taking over the bank how much they would be able to seell it for.
- And then the new owners (whose paid and put up pennies on thee dollar) were given a cap of 20% losses on any non-performing loans whereby the govt would pay an additional losses.
- so if the govt was guaranteeing 80-90% of the asset value why were depositors only given 50% and then told there would be no more monies paid out.
------------------------
-- the FDIC agenicies that are supposed to watch over banks were asleep and corrupt (in telling Indymac to falsify deposit records) which directly allowed thee greedy/corrupt bankers and mortgage brokers to line their pockets which commissions
on inflated asset value....
--- Then the govt rewarded those with mortgages who got in over their heads, reducing their interest to near zero and extending their payments out as much as 40 years.
--- The govt also reward first time home buyers with an 8000 tax credit, that should go to all home buyers
----It should not have gone to just first time home buyers since they are the ones with the least credit who got themselves into crazy mortgages with variable rates...
----The govt also then bailed out insurance companies who owned thesee assets and were suppoosed to be in part responsible for mortgage insurance on 1st and 2ndmortgages...
----------------------------------
WE THE DEPOITORS CREDITED THE BUSINESS'S, THE JOBS AND THE CAPITAL, AND THEN INTRUSTED OUR MONIES INTO BANKS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REGULATED AS REQUIRED BY LAW. AND BECAUSE THE AGENCIES DID NOT WATCH OVER THE BANKS AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW, (THE BANKS, THE BROKERS, MORTGAGE BUYERS WERE ALLOWED TO BREAK THESE LAWS) WHICH CAUSED CAUSED THE FAILURE AT INDYMAC.
And when this failure at Inidymac occured it became appearant to the government that the FDIC coverage of 100K was not sufficient and should be permanantly changed to 250K per eligible account/depositor.
Therefore it would only be just to make the new coveerageage retroactive to cover the Indymac depositors.
If you and others vote yes to do this ( using TARP) monies I promise to put the monies back into the economy.
Sincerely
Ronald Bucell
I Fairness
The government decided to initially raise the FDIC limit to 250K, and then later made it a
permanent change.
Initially they did this because they needed to attract - reassure new money back into
American Banks. (they told us it was temporary citing unusual economic times)
But by making it a permanent change, they have realized and concluded
( when IndyMac & other banks failed) that
- 100k insurance per account/depositor is not sufficient
( since many acct holders are business's or retirees whose deposits often exceed 100k).
It is directly because of the failure of Indymac and other banks which followed, that the government concluded the the 100k insurance needed a permanent change.
Therefore it is only right and just that Indymac depositors receive a retroactive 250k FDIC coverage.
=================================================================================
I was an Indymac Depositor (Not an Investor, and not a speculator) who lost approx 167,000.00
in uninsured deposits when Indymac Failed.
I had my life savings of 567,000.00 from the (sale of my house) in a moneymarket acct for
approx 2 years with Indymac.
Before opening the account I was told by Indymac and by the FDIC (whom I called prior)
that each name on the account, "Mine" + plus each of 6 "in trust for" names would each
receive 100k in FDIC coverage.
** Unfortunately after the bank failure I found this to be wrong information.
Appearantly if my name was on the account alone, only then would I receive 100k insurance, but when/if I the account
holder names any "in trust for" persons, then only the in trust for names receive insurance and not myself whose name
is the only name on the account.
Most bank clerks and managers (90-95%) still today incorrectly think that the name on the acct plus each in trust for
will receive FDIC coverage.
** IndyMac only put 4 of the 6 "InTrustFor" names on the account.
- they did not print the for names or any of the intrust for names on any bank statement, therefore I
had no way of knowing or suspecting that they had not put all 6 names onto their internal signature card.
- * because Indymac and most banks dont require that the "intrust for persons" sign any signature card or
or provide any ss #'s; I never thought to ask IndyMac to provide me a copy of a signature card that only they created.
And yes I did have copies of Account opening paperwork including signed proof of receipt by Indymac.
===========================================================================================
Although I can think 100 good reasons, which include
=======================================
A) - my specific accounts and IndyMac's improper handling/titling thereof.
B) - specific failure of Indymac
- IndyMac's fraud
- Lack of oversight by government agencies
including telling Indymac to change the date on deposit records
C) inadequate rules/laws regarding FDIC disclosure
Unfortunately years ago there was not a FDIC estimator tool. I was only informed of one after the failure.
Unfortunately banks are not required to print on a statement the amount which is and is not FDIC nsured.
D) a suspect 50% payout to depositors, 6 months prior to Indymac sale
i believe the gov't agreed to split the 1st 20% in losses and then to cover 100% thereafter
to the new purchasing bank.... (so if the new bank is losing only a max of 10-20%, why
would depositors need to lose 50% of their deposits?)
E) Schumer irresponsibly yelling Fire (in essence), causing depositors to pull out monies
- causing IndyMac to fall below cash on hand requirements...
*** Unfortunatly I and others were unable to get Indymac on the phone or to do a
Internet transfer days before Indymac was taken over by the government
F) SO MANY COMPANIES IN THE PAST AND PRESENT RECEIVED BAILOUT MONIES AND OTHER ASSISTANCE
DURING TIMES OF DISASTER.
- WE AS DEPOSITORS DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD, WE DID NOT COOK THE BOOKS, WE DID NOT ACT
RECKLESSLY - WE SAVED OUR MONEY, CREATED BUSINESS - CREATED EMPLOYEMENT, AND IN
TRUSTED IT INTO THE USA BANKING SYSTEM.
The government decided to initially raise the FDIC limit to 250K, and then later made it a permanent change.
Initially they did this because they needed to attract - reassure new money back into American Banks.
(they told us it was temporary citing unusual economic times)
But by making it a permanent change, they have realized and concluded ( when IndyMac & other banks failed) that
- 100k insurance per account/depositor is not sufficient
( since many acct holders are business's or retirees whose deposits often exceed 100k).
It is directly because of the failure of Indymac and other banks which followed, that the government
concluded the the 100k insurance needed a permanent change.
Therefore it is only right and just that Indymac depositors receive a retroactive 250k FDIC coverage.
From: RONALD L. BUCELL 12/10/2009
Lady Lake, FL 32159
To: -->> Congress-people ( Congresswomen & Congressmen )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Please vote yes to make FDIC insurance of 250K retroactive to the date of the loss by Indymac
depoitors. This amendment is to be presented by Jane Harman's office, on or about 12/8-10/2009.
***** It's about fairness !!!
Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for
H.R. 4173 - Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009
Harman (CA) #238
Would allow depositors in any institution for which the FDIC was appointed as receiver or conservator on July 11, 2008 (IndyMAC) to be compensated for uninsured deposits up to the new FDIC insurance limit of $250,000.
Harman (CA) #239
Would allow depositors of any institution for which the FDIC was appointed receiver or conservator on July 11, 2008 (IndyMAC) to be compensated for uninsured deposits up to the new FDIC insurance limit of $250,000. The insurance would be offset with TARP funds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday I wrote regarding the above subject and will include a copy of the letter in this correspondence that follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE THE DEPOITORS, CREATED THE BUSINESS'S, THE JOBS AND THE CAPITAL, AND THEN INTRUSTED OUR MONIES INTO BANKS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REGULATED AS REQUIRED BY LAW. AND BECAUSE THE AGENCIES DID NOT WATCH OVER THE BANKS AS WAS/IS REQUIRED BY LAW, (THE BANKS, THE BROKERS, MORTGAGE BUYERS WERE ALLOWED TO BREAK THESE LAWS) WHICH CAUSED CAUSED THE FAILURE AT INDYMAC.
And when this failure at Inidymac occured it became appearant to the government that the FDIC coverage of 100K was not sufficient and should be permanantly changed to 250K per eligible account/depositor.
Therefore it would only be just to make the new coverage retroactive to cover the Indymac depositors.
If you and others vote yes to do this ( using TARP) monies I promise to put the monies back into the economy.
A Plea for help !!!
Not only was I an Indymac depositor (for business use & for personal future retirement savings) who lost 167,000.00 in monies deemed uninsured,
- but I was a small business owner, whom has started 5 successful different business over
over the last 30 plus years and whom has created and employed 100+ workers over that
time frame.
- as a result i have had to close my current businesses and can no longer employ workers.
- I have never asked for or taken ( nor would I ) any public assistance or government monies
of any kind nor would I.
- I and my wife now drive a 16 year old van and clip coupons and sell things on ebay to get by.
- As required by law, i I have declared & paid taxes on interest earned on paper
( Principal and Interest on monies that I have not and will never see ).
Kind of Ironic, that you have to pay taxes on Interest credited to an an account whose
balance was reduced by 167,000.00 ( which was more than 10x the amount of interest earned)
- Before opening the account I was told by Indymac supervisor and also by a supervisor
at the FDIC (whom i called prior) that I plus all named ITF (in trust for's) would each receive 100k insurance coverage. Unfortunately this is incorrect, (as i learned from a newly created FDIC calculator program that did not exist prior) when the person whose account it is names ITF's then that person no longer counts as one of the names eligible for 100k insurance.
-----------------------
- And some how by sheer luck the buyers of the indymac bank paid a price equal to an amount that just covered the 50% advance paid out to depositors. How would FDIC officals know immediately after taking over the bank how much they would be able to seell it for.
- And then the new owners (whose paid and put up pennies on thee dollar) were given a cap of 20% losses on any non-performing loans whereby the govt would pay an additional losses.
- so if the govt was guaranteeing 80-90% of the asset value why were depositors only given 50% and then told there would be no more monies paid out.
------------------------
-- the FDIC agenicies that are supposed to watch over banks were asleep and corrupt (in telling Indymac to falsify deposit records) which directly allowed thee greedy/corrupt bankers and mortgage brokers to line their pockets which commissions
on inflated asset value....
--- Then the govt rewarded those with mortgages who got in over their heads, reducing their interest to near zero and extending their payments out as much as 40 years.
--- The govt also reward first time home buyers with an 8000 tax credit, that should go to all home buyers
----It should not have gone to just first time home buyers since they are the ones with the least credit who got themselves into crazy mortgages with variable rates...
----The govt also then bailed out insurance companies who owned thesee assets and were suppoosed to be in part responsible for mortgage insurance on 1st and 2ndmortgages...
----------------------------------
WE THE DEPOITORS CREDITED THE BUSINESS'S, THE JOBS AND THE CAPITAL, AND THEN INTRUSTED OUR MONIES INTO BANKS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REGULATED AS REQUIRED BY LAW. AND BECAUSE THE AGENCIES DID NOT WATCH OVER THE BANKS AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW, (THE BANKS, THE BROKERS, MORTGAGE BUYERS WERE ALLOWED TO BREAK THESE LAWS) WHICH CAUSED CAUSED THE FAILURE AT INDYMAC.
And when this failure at Inidymac occured it became appearant to the government that the FDIC coverage of 100K was not sufficient and should be permanantly changed to 250K per eligible account/depositor.
Therefore it would only be just to make the new coveerageage retroactive to cover the Indymac depositors.
If you and others vote yes to do this ( using TARP) monies I promise to put the monies back into the economy.
Sincerely
Ronald Bucell
I Fairness
The government decided to initially raise the FDIC limit to 250K, and then later made it a
permanent change.
Initially they did this because they needed to attract - reassure new money back into
American Banks. (they told us it was temporary citing unusual economic times)
But by making it a permanent change, they have realized and concluded
( when IndyMac & other banks failed) that
- 100k insurance per account/depositor is not sufficient
( since many acct holders are business's or retirees whose deposits often exceed 100k).
It is directly because of the failure of Indymac and other banks which followed, that the government concluded the the 100k insurance needed a permanent change.
Therefore it is only right and just that Indymac depositors receive a retroactive 250k FDIC coverage.
=================================================================================
I was an Indymac Depositor (Not an Investor, and not a speculator) who lost approx 167,000.00
in uninsured deposits when Indymac Failed.
I had my life savings of 567,000.00 from the (sale of my house) in a moneymarket acct for
approx 2 years with Indymac.
Before opening the account I was told by Indymac and by the FDIC (whom I called prior)
that each name on the account, "Mine" + plus each of 6 "in trust for" names would each
receive 100k in FDIC coverage.
** Unfortunately after the bank failure I found this to be wrong information.
Appearantly if my name was on the account alone, only then would I receive 100k insurance, but when/if I the account
holder names any "in trust for" persons, then only the in trust for names receive insurance and not myself whose name
is the only name on the account.
Most bank clerks and managers (90-95%) still today incorrectly think that the name on the acct plus each in trust for
will receive FDIC coverage.
** IndyMac only put 4 of the 6 "InTrustFor" names on the account.
- they did not print the for names or any of the intrust for names on any bank statement, therefore I
had no way of knowing or suspecting that they had not put all 6 names onto their internal signature card.
- * because Indymac and most banks dont require that the "intrust for persons" sign any signature card or
or provide any ss #'s; I never thought to ask IndyMac to provide me a copy of a signature card that only they created.
And yes I did have copies of Account opening paperwork including signed proof of receipt by Indymac.
===========================================================================================
Although I can think 100 good reasons, which include
=======================================
A) - my specific accounts and IndyMac's improper handling/titling thereof.
B) - specific failure of Indymac
- IndyMac's fraud
- Lack of oversight by government agencies
including telling Indymac to change the date on deposit records
C) inadequate rules/laws regarding FDIC disclosure
Unfortunately years ago there was not a FDIC estimator tool. I was only informed of one after the failure.
Unfortunately banks are not required to print on a statement the amount which is and is not FDIC nsured.
D) a suspect 50% payout to depositors, 6 months prior to Indymac sale
i believe the gov't agreed to split the 1st 20% in losses and then to cover 100% thereafter
to the new purchasing bank.... (so if the new bank is losing only a max of 10-20%, why
would depositors need to lose 50% of their deposits?)
E) Schumer irresponsibly yelling Fire (in essence), causing depositors to pull out monies
- causing IndyMac to fall below cash on hand requirements...
*** Unfortunatly I and others were unable to get Indymac on the phone or to do a
Internet transfer days before Indymac was taken over by the government
F) SO MANY COMPANIES IN THE PAST AND PRESENT RECEIVED BAILOUT MONIES AND OTHER ASSISTANCE
DURING TIMES OF DISASTER.
- WE AS DEPOSITORS DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD, WE DID NOT COOK THE BOOKS, WE DID NOT ACT
RECKLESSLY - WE SAVED OUR MONEY, CREATED BUSINESS - CREATED EMPLOYEMENT, AND IN
TRUSTED IT INTO THE USA BANKING SYSTEM.
The government decided to initially raise the FDIC limit to 250K, and then later made it a permanent change.
Initially they did this because they needed to attract - reassure new money back into American Banks.
(they told us it was temporary citing unusual economic times)
But by making it a permanent change, they have realized and concluded ( when IndyMac & other banks failed) that
- 100k insurance per account/depositor is not sufficient
( since many acct holders are business's or retirees whose deposits often exceed 100k).
It is directly because of the failure of Indymac and other banks which followed, that the government
concluded the the 100k insurance needed a permanent change.
Therefore it is only right and just that Indymac depositors receive a retroactive 250k FDIC coverage.