tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6098993761352697681.post1289843210863685785..comments2009-05-28T17:56:04.849-04:00Mukesh Chatterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07268919175137250694noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6098993761352697681.post-5916909298904339972009-05-28T10:45:21.188-04:002009-05-28T10:45:21.188-04:00I've got news for you! That is punishing savers -- those of us who are trying to save for retirement and not rely on anyone else for our support are penalized simply by the fact that we might go over the insurance limit. <br /><br />I think it is a bad idea! What I would have preferred is the FDIC increase in insurance to $250000 without the 4 year limit which would mean the insurance would revert to $100,000. <br /><br />Where are the controls on the banks that make poor lending decisions? I don't think it is the place of the FDIC to be guaranteeing very large deposits --already we have had the FDIC getting more authority -- i.e. guaranteeing some of the recent big bank bonds -- like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. The FDIC's scope of authority is spreading far out and small savers are likely to find themselves in trouble is the FDIC winds up insuring too many different pools of assets amd eventually fails.<br /> <br /><br />While I earn a paltry interest rate on my savings, someone with a 6% mortgage gets refinancing down to 4.5% with lots of fees for the banks --- and poor interest rates to the depositors who provided the assets that the bank is lending.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com