Topic: Cyprus-Style “Bail-Ins” for TBTF Banks in US, England and Canada

[Pandora]

"We suspected that the same policy change had been made by the US & the UK, but was simply yet to be discovered, buried in the website of a Federal agency.

We suspected correctly…

In the introduction, the resolution informs readers that the FDIC and the Bank of England have been working together to formulate the new bail-in model for future bank failures:

... The joint US/UK resolution states that depositor haircuts are already legal in the UK thanks to the 2009 UK Banking Act:

... And that the legal authority has already been given in the US buried in Dodd-Frank:

... The resolution states that while the US would prefer large financial institutions be resolved through ordinary bankruptcy, depositor wealth confiscation will be pursued in the case of a systemically important institution (i.e. BOA, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, etc):

... The resolution authority states that shareholders would lose all value prior to depositor scalpings:

... The banksters plans for a bail-in resolution agency include investment banks and clearing houses as well as deposit bearing institutions!!!

... Exactly as played out with the Cyprus template, depositors will receive equity shares in the new, bailed-in institution:

... Exactly as played out with the Cyprus template, depositor funds will be stolen in whatever quantities are required to keep the TBTF zombie bank afloat:

... For now (until the rules are changed when a greater need for funds arises, funds will only be stolen from depositors with more than the FDIC insured $100,000 in their account:

... In order for the resolution to work, the banksters state that the public must be convinced their deposits are safe, when in fact they are subject to bail-in confiscation:

"Similarly, because the group remains solvent, retail or corporate depositors should not have an incentive to “run” from the firm under resolution insofar as their banking
    arrangements, transacted at the operating company level, remain unaffected.  In order to achieve this, the authorities recognize the need for effective communication to depositors, making it clear that their deposits will be protected.

0.1% interest on savings deposits with the now VERY REAL THREAT OF COMPLETE CONFISCATION in the US & UK doesn’t sound like such a great return to us.

The Fed appears to be making a calculated play to force savings out of the TBTF banks and into stocks and real estate, a move that is likely to backfire spectacularly."

[Glock32]

I'm also sick and tired of these damnable euphemisms.  "Hair cut".  Feh.  I wish writers and bloggers would stop using their language. Start calling it what it is: theft. And yes, to allay the torch wielding mobs, they're adding a class warfare angle by (for now) only targeting accounts with large balances.

I despair. I really do. The average idiot doesn't care about any of this one iota. Because hey, Dancing With the Stars is on! The SNAP and WIC cards are getting recharged every month!

[Libertas]

Legislated theft by force of government is no different from armed robbery.  The thieves should be shot as if they were kicking in your door.

Think it will not happen here in the very near future?  Heck, FDR already did it when he confiscated gold and renumerated the owners at a price set by government.

Think "it will happen" and plan accordingly.

[warpmine]

"The thieves should be shot as if they were kicking in your door."

That could be the 25 million number Bill Ayers was referring to. The remainder of the takers will of course be shot at the time of their attempted robbery during the bad times ahead.

[ToddF]

Funds over the insured amount have always been subject to loss.  It's up to you to keep the amounts less than $250,000 (which is what it is now.)  Anything over that you could lose.  People have recently in banks that have gone bankrupt and people always will.

[Pandora]

Funds over the insured amount have always been subject to loss.  It's up to you to keep the amounts less than $250,000 (which is what it is now.)  Anything over that you could lose.  People have recently in banks that have gone bankrupt and people always will.

The temporary increase from $100,000 to $250,000 was effective from October 3, 2008, through December 31, 2010. On May 20, 2009, the temporary increase was extended through December 31, 2013.

[Libertas]

They also changed a long time ago to the aggregrate rule, to stop people from opening multiple accounts in different banks.

[Weisshaupt]

Funds over the insured amount have always been subject to loss.  It's up to you to keep the amounts less than $250,000 (which is what it is now.)  Anything over that you could lose.  People have recently in banks that have gone bankrupt and people always will.

The temporary increase from $100,000 to $250,000 was effective from October 3, 2008, through December 31, 2010. On May 20, 2009, the temporary increase was extended through December 31, 2013.

Only the FICA has Billions to cover trillions in accounts if US Banks really experience a run, and those Billions exist as one's and zero's..They don't have enough physical cash to really support the money supply now.  Go to a bank and take out $1-2K  and watch them squirm. By doing so you are pretty much taking most of their on-hand cash for the rest of the day. Take $5K out and they will probably try to give you a BS story about having to wait a day ( so they can order the cash)

FICA means nothing. Even if the fed decides to print it for you, it will take weeks - because they have to physically print it.  All you have is an assurance that the one's and zero's in your account will still reflect $250K or whatever amount. You won't be able or allowed to actually withdraw it - or perhaps even to  spend it.. Can you imagine having just sold property and in the process of closing on the new when they steal the money?
 Bitcoin is going crazy just now because Europeans are using it to get their money out - and in easily and internationally exchangeable form without being subject to capital controls.
 Right now the BEST way to get money out of your account is by buying bullion or other commodities and taking physical delivery.
If something bad happens, a pile of cash is going to have a limited shelf life - basically the time it takes for people to realize the banks will never really  reopen - and their access to their savings will be $100 a day...meanwhile no one actually deposits funds - just as most of us have already decided to not participate  in 401Ks at work, no one puts good money after bad.  You demand to be paid in cash, and there just isn't enough.

[Libertas]

Won't it be interesting to see the outright shock and panic on the faces of the brain-dead idiots who bought the statist line and thought nothing like this could ever happen here...some of the lazy fatheads might just stroke out.

Oh well.

[ToddF]

How much insurance coverage does the FDIC provide?
The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.

The FDIC insures deposits that a person holds in one insured bank separately from any deposits that the person owns in another separately chartered insured bank. For example, if a person has a certificate of deposit at Bank A and has a certificate of deposit at Bank B, the accounts would each be insured separately up to $250,000. Funds deposited in separate branches of the same insured bank are not separately insured.

The FDIC provides separate insurance coverage for funds depositors may have in different categories of legal ownership. The FDIC refers to these different categories as “ownership categories.” This means that a bank customer who has multiple accounts may qualify for more than $250,000 in insurance coverage if the customer’s funds are deposited in different ownership categories and the requirements for each ownership category are met.

According to the government, it's EACH bank.

[Libertas]

Ahh, sepearate branches.  Either way, look for these coverages to be reduced, restricted or just outright ignored once the Obama hits the fan.

[ToddF]

Separate branches are one bank.  $250,000 in Wells Fargo and $250,000 in US Bank is all fully insured.

I did the NetBank thing from almost day 1.  They were successful until they started playing with the mortgage business.  They eventually went under.  I got my money out ahead of time, knowing they were going under, even though it was under $100k.  I read of at least one business, though, that kept their operating account with NetBank.  They lost their cash over that $100k.  It still doesn't hurt to pay attention to what's going on with your bank.

That's not always easy, I admit.  NetBank's mortgage business was a clusterfluke from day 1, where Washington Mutual's kind of blew up all at once.

[Libertas]

Good advice MNHawk, my accounts are largely clearing centers now of well below threshold, as of last month I am about as immune from surprises as I can be.

The folks who really have to manage this intelligently are small business people, their very livelihood depends on it.