Showing posts with label Banking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Banking. Show all posts

How Much Can FDIC Do For Banks And Their Depositors

Shelly Banjo

The failure of IndyMac Bank has depositors worrying about what funds are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission. Here are answers to some commonly asked questions:

Question: If a bank fails, like IndyMac did last week, what protects customers' deposits?

Answer: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. covers individual accounts up to $100,000 per deposit per bank or $250,000 for most retirement accounts (and that includes any accrued interest). The agency may increase the coverage, but that can't happen by law until 2011.

The FDIC doesn't insure money invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, life-insurance policies, annuities or municipal securities, even if these investments were bought from an insured bank.

But sometimes deposits sneak north of $100,000 because the customer isn't paying attention. "Regardless of the health of your bank or condition of the overall economy ... returns are never high enough to justify the exposure of uninsured deposits," says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

Question: What do depositors do if they have more than $100,000 they need to put in the bank?

Answer: One way to protect the money is to hold accounts under that sum at a few separate banks. For those wanting to keep money at the same institution, perhaps for convenience's sake, a sound strategy is to open different accounts.

For instance, a married couple could each open an individual account (up to $100,000 in each), a joint account (up to $200,000), two separate individual retirement accounts ($250,000 each) and two revocable trust accounts, payable on death, naming each other as beneficiaries ($100,000 each). Together that is more than $1 million of insured deposits.

Also, they could set up additional revocable trusts insured up to $100,000 for other qualified beneficiaries such as parents, siblings, children and grandchildren.

Question: Are there any pitfalls to this multiple-account, single-bank approach?

Answer: Depositors should make sure their accounts are properly titled at the bank. Bank employees may not always know the correct distinctions.

Because of misinformation from Countrywide Financial Corp., "I had $100,000 in funds uninsured for a considerable amount of time," says Scott Marberblatt of Swampscott, Mass. He held $100,000 in a certificate of deposit and put $100,000 in a savings account with two beneficiaries. But the bank did not properly title the savings account with the words "In Trust For," so the second $100,000 went uninsured.

If Countrywide had failed -- it ended up being acquired by much stronger Bank of America Corp. -- then he would have had a problem.

To verify all accounts are FDIC-insured, contact the FDIC consumer hot line at 1-877-275-3342 or use the deposit insurance calculator at www.fdic.gov.

Question: Should a bank go under, are depositors with more than $100,000 in one account out of luck?

Answer: Not entirely. Amounts over $100,000 can be partially reimbursed after some time and hassle, with the money coming from sales of the failed bank's assets. This resembles how creditors are paid in bankruptcies. The schedule varies, according to FDIC dictates.

In IndyMac's case, depositors will have access to half of their uninsured deposits Monday via an FDIC advance on asset-sale proceeds. They can withdraw that money, but the FDIC says they don't need to do so. In general, depositors eventually get 70% to 80% of their funds returned.

Question: Is it possible to get warning that a bank will go under?

Answer: No. The FDIC says it works aggressively behind the scenes with what the agency deems "problem banks." It doesn't want to set off a panic, where customers pull out their deposits. "We cannot alert customers directly before we close a bank," said Andrew Gray, FDIC spokesman. For the time being, IndyMac continues to operate, but under regulators' management.

Sphere: Related Content

Allegations About Millionaire Factory's Financies On The Spotlight

Nick Mathiason


In Australia, Macquarie Bank is known as the "millionaires factory" for good reason. In the past 10 years, it has come from nowhere to become one of the world's most aggressive buyers of airports, toll roads, energy firms and utilities. If an asset has a reliable cash flow, Macquarie, it seems, has pounced.

In so doing, the Sydney-based bank has left better-known institutions trailing in the dash to seize valuable prizes.

The rewards for being a "diversified financial services company", as Macquarie likes to style itself, are immense. Allan Moss, its bookish chief executive, is Australia's highest paid businessman with a $38.4 million package.

But as interest rates rose last year, and world credit markets seized up this summer, Macquarie was put in the uncomfortable position of being subject to speculation.

This boils down to fears that its ambitious growth is unsustainable.

With its hard-to-fathom structure placed under the spotlight, the talk has been that potential financial problems could rebound not just on Macquarie shareholders, but also citizens from dozens of countries which have key public services supplied by Macquarie.

In Britain, for example, this includes Thames Water, which Macquarie acquired from German firm RWE last year for £8 billion ($21 billion); the London Underground; Bristol airport; and the M6 toll road in the Midlands.

Thames Water faces fines of up £12.5 million from industry regulator Ofwat for misreporting poor processes that led to customers receiving unsatisfactory services.

Last week speculation about Macquarie turned up a notch after the publication of an eight-page report in the influential Fortune magazine. The author was Bethany McLean, the journalist who first spotted that Enron, rather than being a stock market darling, was instead a fraudulent web of off-balance sheet structures that was heading for the rocks.

Although there is no suggestion that Macquarie has behaved fraudulently, McLean's report made a number of allegations about the bank's finances. The most serious of these were that:

* Macquarie overpaid for assets to trigger performance fees.

* It is impossible to calculate independently how much debt the bank is exposed to.

* Though the practice is not illegal, the bank borrows money to pay dividends to shareholders on the assumption of future growth.

* The majority of deals on which Macquarie advises involve another Macquarie entity with a number of separate Macquarie funds holding the same asset.

To the bank the report made uncomfortable reading, but insiders say many of the claims have been aired before and can be rebutted. In a statement, Allan Moss said: "The sorts of comments to which you refer have been made, but they have been made by people who have not taken the trouble to study Macquarie Bank closely.

"They are not views that have been adopted by serious investors or serious analysts. Our view is that it is well understood that we have a very robust business model."

Macquarie believes that rather than being secretive, the fact that many of its funds are publicly quoted makes it more transparent than many of its rivals. Reacting to criticism that the aggressive financing model leads to excessive charges in some of its airports - like Sydney - and toll roads, the company says this scenario does not represent the way it runs its other airports.

Though concern is rising about Macquarie, it is nevertheless linked to many big infrastructure deals currently available.

When Royal Bank of Scotland last week signalled its intention to sell its €4 billion ($7 billion) Angel train leasing firm, Macquarie was understood to be interested.

And it has been widely rumoured that it is set to team up with US bank JP Morgan in the £4 billion bid battle for Southern Water. JP Morgan Asset Management's infrastructure investment fund has been in advanced talks to submit a joint offer with Macquarie and other smaller funds, according to well-placed sources.

The bank refuses to comment on any of these possible deals, which could consolidate its position as one of the country's most important businesses.

As a signal that the company is broadening into new areas, it recently signed a deal with troubled Wembley stadium building firm Multiplex worth £339.5 million to develop three hospitals in the UK.

The pair will build a 612-bed acute hospital, a 102-bed mental health unit and a 34-bed integrated care centre in Peterborough. The project is being worked through a special purpose entity called Progress Health, 30 per cent owned by Multiplex UK and 70 per cent by Macquarie Bank.

But the firm is in the business of selling. Two weeks ago, Australia's Victorian Funds Management and Canada's Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan bought a combined 48.25 per cent stake in Birmingham International Airport for £420 million.

The two funds bought the stake from Macquarie Airports and Ireland's Dublin Airport Authority.

As the firm ratchets up its activity throughout the world, questions about whether its finance structure is sustainable may increase as uncertainty in credit markets continue, whether the company likes it or not.

Sphere: Related Content