FDIC bankrupted by bankrupt banks asks bankrupt banks for bailout

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,631
88
91
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Makes sense to me, depending on how they do it. If FDIC acts as an insurance company, which it basically does, and banks have become more risky as of late, which they have, why wouldn't the FDIC in effect, raise their premiums?

It happens to us as consumers all the time.

the problem is that some banks can't afford a hypothetical fee in this case and might cuase more failures.

the fdic taking out a loan will have to be paid by future assessment fees, so really this will be a case of healthly banks indirectly lending crappy banks money to keep the crappy banks from going under and all guaranteed by the gov. Not the best situation imo, but not the worst either.

Again, banks and insurance companies do this to us as consumers every day. When a consumer's credit score goes down, banks and other risk-adverse companies, charge us higher interest rates, or higher fees, or close accounts or lower credit limits. This is done regardless of whether a consumer can afford it or not.

So again, why do we care if these banks get treated the same?

If banks dont lend, they are considered discriminatory. Legislation is passed, banks are forced to lend to unqualified individuals.
Suddenly everyone has loans, but not all of them are getting paid. Banks have now lost money and fail. Legislators and fools scream of the failures of the free market (Which was never free to begin with).
FDIC runs out of money trying to insure depositors money and ensure the confidence in the system.
Posed solutions include getting money from the Treasury but that just adds to the "free money" printing thats going on. We've printed enough already to cause problems, real fuckin big problems. Other solutions include taxing the entities on the brink of failure. Nothing like raising taxes on the unemployed eh?

Hope and Change, Hope and Change. Sadly you dont see a problem with it, but then again I'm not entirely suprised that some fail to see just how badly we're getting fucked by the just left white Bush and the newly elected black Bush.

I really don't like to throw insults, but your post is idiotic. If you want to really why out what happened in the housing market, go here. It's long and has lots of words, so I'm sure you won't read it, but maybe someone on the board will and thus this post is worth it. Humans are notoriously bad at weighing long-term risk vs short-term profit. Hence, the situation we're in.

Also

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks ? not Fannie and Freddie ? dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

Just because I know you won't read the longer, more complicated report.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Makes sense to me, depending on how they do it. If FDIC acts as an insurance company, which it basically does, and banks have become more risky as of late, which they have, why wouldn't the FDIC in effect, raise their premiums?

It happens to us as consumers all the time.

the problem is that some banks can't afford a hypothetical fee in this case and might cuase more failures.

the fdic taking out a loan will have to be paid by future assessment fees, so really this will be a case of healthly banks indirectly lending crappy banks money to keep the crappy banks from going under and all guaranteed by the gov. Not the best situation imo, but not the worst either.

Again, banks and insurance companies do this to us as consumers every day. When a consumer's credit score goes down, banks and other risk-adverse companies, charge us higher interest rates, or higher fees, or close accounts or lower credit limits. This is done regardless of whether a consumer can afford it or not.

So again, why do we care if these banks get treated the same?

If banks dont lend, they are considered discriminatory. Legislation is passed, banks are forced to lend to unqualified individuals.
Suddenly everyone has loans, but not all of them are getting paid. Banks have now lost money and fail. Legislators and fools scream of the failures of the free market (Which was never free to begin with).
FDIC runs out of money trying to insure depositors money and ensure the confidence in the system.
Posed solutions include getting money from the Treasury but that just adds to the "free money" printing thats going on. We've printed enough already to cause problems, real fuckin big problems. Other solutions include taxing the entities on the brink of failure. Nothing like raising taxes on the unemployed eh?

Hope and Change, Hope and Change. Sadly you dont see a problem with it, but then again I'm not entirely suprised that some fail to see just how badly we're getting fucked by the just left white Bush and the newly elected black Bush.

what a crap post. You don't have a clue

A well thought out rebuttal, filled with information and facts with which to defend your position. Well done, Idiot.

Sorry, your post really didn't deserve a well thought out rebuttal. Talk about shallow.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Makes sense to me, depending on how they do it. If FDIC acts as an insurance company, which it basically does, and banks have become more risky as of late, which they have, why wouldn't the FDIC in effect, raise their premiums?

It happens to us as consumers all the time.

the problem is that some banks can't afford a hypothetical fee in this case and might cuase more failures.

the fdic taking out a loan will have to be paid by future assessment fees, so really this will be a case of healthly banks indirectly lending crappy banks money to keep the crappy banks from going under and all guaranteed by the gov. Not the best situation imo, but not the worst either.

Again, banks and insurance companies do this to us as consumers every day. When a consumer's credit score goes down, banks and other risk-adverse companies, charge us higher interest rates, or higher fees, or close accounts or lower credit limits. This is done regardless of whether a consumer can afford it or not.

So again, why do we care if these banks get treated the same?

If banks dont lend, they are considered discriminatory. Legislation is passed, banks are forced to lend to unqualified individuals.
Suddenly everyone has loans, but not all of them are getting paid. Banks have now lost money and fail. Legislators and fools scream of the failures of the free market (Which was never free to begin with).
FDIC runs out of money trying to insure depositors money and ensure the confidence in the system.
Posed solutions include getting money from the Treasury but that just adds to the "free money" printing thats going on. We've printed enough already to cause problems, real fuckin big problems. Other solutions include taxing the entities on the brink of failure. Nothing like raising taxes on the unemployed eh?

Hope and Change, Hope and Change. Sadly you dont see a problem with it, but then again I'm not entirely suprised that some fail to see just how badly we're getting fucked by the just left white Bush and the newly elected black Bush.

what a crap post. You don't have a clue

A well thought out rebuttal, filled with information and facts with which to defend your position. Well done, Idiot.

sorry i don't have the time to correct your twisted make believe land. Its not like your post had any facts in it.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If this doesnt make you pucker up tight I dont know what will. I'm starting to get a bit concerned whats really going on behind closed doors is a systematic plan of slowly bringing down the whole system. Rather then let some of it crash they are trying to slowly let it all come down.

I dunno, but having to ask banks to bailout the FDIC just doesnt sit well with me.

Hope and Change, Hope and Change....

Interesting. I thought that the bill authorizing $700 billion in TARP was signed by the guy pre-hopey change... Unless someone other than Mr. Bush was President on October 3, 2008.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
AIG (insurance company) fails (because of bad banks and other bullshit risk) and everyone bitches because government bails them out. FDIC runs in the money problems (potential failure from bad banks with same bullshit risk) and the same everyone bitches because they opt to try to get private money to bail themselves out. Go figure (but not surprising in the least)! :roll: Seems that the FDIC has done the very thing that the banks have done and that is to become very undercapitalized. Time to raise "premiums" (like all insurance companies do when insuring "higher risk") to raise enough capital.


Seems like all of the pseudo insurance companies are failing (FDIC, Pension guarantee fund, and on...and on).
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Makes sense to me, depending on how they do it. If FDIC acts as an insurance company, which it basically does, and banks have become more risky as of late, which they have, why wouldn't the FDIC in effect, raise their premiums?

It happens to us as consumers all the time.

the problem is that some banks can't afford a hypothetical fee in this case and might cuase more failures.

the fdic taking out a loan will have to be paid by future assessment fees, so really this will be a case of healthly banks indirectly lending crappy banks money to keep the crappy banks from going under and all guaranteed by the gov. Not the best situation imo, but not the worst either.

Again, banks and insurance companies do this to us as consumers every day. When a consumer's credit score goes down, banks and other risk-adverse companies, charge us higher interest rates, or higher fees, or close accounts or lower credit limits. This is done regardless of whether a consumer can afford it or not.

So again, why do we care if these banks get treated the same?

If banks dont lend, they are considered discriminatory. Legislation is passed, banks are forced to lend to unqualified individuals.
Suddenly everyone has loans, but not all of them are getting paid. Banks have now lost money and fail. Legislators and fools scream of the failures of the free market (Which was never free to begin with).
FDIC runs out of money trying to insure depositors money and ensure the confidence in the system.
Posed solutions include getting money from the Treasury but that just adds to the "free money" printing thats going on. We've printed enough already to cause problems, real fuckin big problems. Other solutions include taxing the entities on the brink of failure. Nothing like raising taxes on the unemployed eh?

Hope and Change, Hope and Change. Sadly you dont see a problem with it, but then again I'm not entirely suprised that some fail to see just how badly we're getting fucked by the just left white Bush and the newly elected black Bush.

It seems like you're talking about CRA or maybe the very unregulated non-banks. It's tough to tell.

Could you elaborate on which "legislation [was] passed" that you're referring to? Sessions of congress and bill numbers would make things easier.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
That's pretty much how all insurance works.

When my insurance goe up it takes a good chunk of my 'profit'. I fail to see the issue.

Using loans makes sense if there is strong conviction that this trouble is temporary, and that the existing funding structure will work fine in the long run.

What happens when the insurance cost more than the profit ?

The same thing that happens when you're car insurance costs more than you can afford - it isn't the insurance company's problem that you can't afford something you need, as they will make abundantly clear to you if you call to complain about their rates.

Of course the insurance in this case is not close to costing more than profit (except maybe in a single quarter).
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
That's pretty much how all insurance works.

When my insurance goe up it takes a good chunk of my 'profit'. I fail to see the issue.

Using loans makes sense if there is strong conviction that this trouble is temporary, and that the existing funding structure will work fine in the long run.

What happens when the insurance cost more than the profit ?

Stop paying and remove the FDIC logo from the bank and see how well it does then! :D
 

paperfist

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
6,539
286
126
www.the-teh.com
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Modelworks
The FDIC was the one thing they used to calm fears when people considered removing money from bank accounts. If the word gets out that it is having trouble this could really hurt.

Because the FDIC has the legal right to borrow from the treasury - apparently without limit - I doubt there will be a big scare.

And they can just print the money - apparently without limit - so why would anyone be scared?

What if they run out of Chinese ink and paper? I'd be scared then :D
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: paperfist
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Modelworks
The FDIC was the one thing they used to calm fears when people considered removing money from bank accounts. If the word gets out that it is having trouble this could really hurt.

Because the FDIC has the legal right to borrow from the treasury - apparently without limit - I doubt there will be a big scare.

And they can just print the money - apparently without limit - so why would anyone be scared?

What if they run out of Chinese ink and paper? I'd be scared then :D

I had heard on CNBC that the Chinese portion of our new debt was actually DOWN. I haven't confirmed this but thought it was interesting. The statement went on to say that the overwhelming majority of new government debt was being bought by our own entities.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If this doesnt make you pucker up tight I dont know what will. I'm starting to get a bit concerned whats really going on behind closed doors is a systematic plan of slowly bringing down the whole system. Rather then let some of it crash they are trying to slowly let it all come down.

I dunno, but having to ask banks to bailout the FDIC just doesnt sit well with me.

Hope and Change, Hope and Change....

Interesting. I thought that the bill authorizing $700 billion in TARP was signed by the guy pre-hopey change... Unless someone other than Mr. Bush was President on October 3, 2008.

Everything is Obama's fault, I think you know that by now . . .
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If this doesnt make you pucker up tight I dont know what will. I'm starting to get a bit concerned whats really going on behind closed doors is a systematic plan of slowly bringing down the whole system.

A real concern when the President ran as a moderate but who was really a neo-Marxist who worked for ACORN - founded by a guy who advocated Cloward-Piven strategy. Obama sees US economy as source of oppression in the world and average citizen doesn't get it yet despite Obama kicking country in the groin over and over. He' like a Captain Ahab stalking the whale except he knows his best offense is to seem moderate.

What the fuck? What in the world does this have to do with this thread? Isn't intentionally thread crapping against the rules here? This guy should get a suspension for pulling this crap or something.

And to the OP....I don't really see this as a bad thing honestly--it actually makes some sense. The problem is that this will get publicity as "FDIC going bankrupt" or something and cause panic--which would be bad for everyone.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Originally posted by: Engineer
The statement went on to say that the overwhelming majority of new government debt was being bought by our own entities.

What entities are those?
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If this doesnt make you pucker up tight I dont know what will. I'm starting to get a bit concerned whats really going on behind closed doors is a systematic plan of slowly bringing down the whole system.

A real concern when the President ran as a moderate but who was really a neo-Marxist who worked for ACORN - founded by a guy who advocated Cloward-Piven strategy. Obama sees US economy as source of oppression in the world and average citizen doesn't get it yet despite Obama kicking country in the groin over and over. He' like a Captain Ahab stalking the whale except he knows his best offense is to seem moderate.

Crack will mess you up.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Engineer
The statement went on to say that the overwhelming majority of new government debt was being bought by our own entities.

What entities are those?

It mentioned bond funds and individuals looking for safety of US treasuries vs the insecurity of the stock market, FWIW.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Another article

Article

FDIC's Fund Plunges 20% As Banking Industry Posts Loss

With bank failures rising, the government's deposit insurance fund fell 20 percent to $10.4 billion in the second quarter as U.S. banks lost $3.7 billion.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Thursday that surging levels of soured loans at banks dragged down profits in the April-June period. The $3.7 billion loss compared with profits of $7.6 billion in the first quarter, and $4.7 billion a year ago.

The FDIC also said the number of banks deemed to be in trouble jumped to 416 from 305 at the end of the first quarter. That's the highest number since June 1994 during the savings and loan crisis.

Total assets of troubled institutions surged to $299.8 billion from $220 billion in the first quarter.

Eighty-one banks have failed so far this year, and hundreds more are expected to fall in coming years because of souring loans for commercial real estate. That threatens to deplete the FDIC's fund, which guarantees deposits of up to $250,000 per account.

The new level of the insurance fund puts the ratio at 0.22 percent, compared with the congressionally mandated minimum of 1.15 percent.

The FDIC said nearly 66 percent of banks and savings and loans reported earnings below those in the second quarter of 2008, and more than a quarter posted a net loss.

"While challenges remain, evidence is building that the U.S. economy is starting to grow again," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a statement. "The banking industry, too, can look forward to better times ahead. But for now, the difficult and necessary process of recognizing loan losses and cleaning up balance sheets continues to be reflected in the industry's bottom line."

The 8,195 federally insured banks and thrifts set aside $66.9 billion in the second quarter to cover potential loan losses, up from $60.9 billion a year earlier.

The FDIC's insurance fund has been so depleted by the epidemic of collapsing financial institutions that analysts warn it could sink into the red by the end of this year.

That has happened only once before?during the savings-and-loan crisis of the early 1990s, when the FDIC was forced to borrow $15 billion from the Treasury and repay it later with interest.

Small and midsize banks nationwide have been hurt by rising loan defaults in the recession. When they fail, the FDIC is responsible for making sure depositors don't lose a cent.

It has two options to replenish its insurance fund in the short run: It can charge banks higher fees or it can take the more radical step of borrowing from the U.S. Treasury.

None of this means bank customers have anything to worry about. The FDIC is fully backed by the government, which means depositors' accounts are guaranteed up to $250,000 per account. And it still has billions in loss reserves apart from the insurance fund.

Because of the surging bank failures, the FDIC's board voted Wednesday to make it easier for private investors to buy failed financial institutions.

Private equity funds have been criticized for taking too many risks and paying managers too much. But these days fewer healthy banks are willing to buy ailing banks, and the depth of the banking crisis appears to have softened the FDIC's resistance to private buyers.

Nice try...but your thread title is an out and out lie....
Nowhere does it say the FDIC is bankrupt.....
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Nice try...but your thread title is an out and out lie....
Nowhere does it say the FDIC is bankrupt.....

Correct. The FDIC wants to borrow from healthy banks instead of tapping into the $100 billion credit line that it has with the Treasury.

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If this doesnt make you pucker up tight I dont know what will. I'm starting to get a bit concerned whats really going on behind closed doors is a systematic plan of slowly bringing down the whole system. Rather then let some of it crash they are trying to slowly let it all come down.

I dunno, but having to ask banks to bailout the FDIC just doesnt sit well with me.

Hope and Change, Hope and Change....

Article

FDIC May Ask Banks for a Bailout

Tired of the government bailing out banks? Get ready for this: officials may soon ask banks to bail out the government.

FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair
AP
FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair
Senior regulators say they are seriously considering a plan to have the nation?s healthy banks lend billions of dollars to rescue the insurance fund that protects bank depositors. That would enable the fund, which is rapidly running out of money because of a wave of bank failures, to continue to rescue the sickest banks.

The plan, strongly supported by bankers and their lobbyists, would be a major reversal of fortune.

A hallmark of the financial crisis has been the decision by successive administrations over the last year to lend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to large and small banks.

?It?s a nice irony,? said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, a consulting company. ?Like so much of this crisis, this is an issue that involves the least-worst options.?

Bankers and their lobbyists like the idea because it is more attractive than the alternatives: yet another across-the-board emergency assessment on them, or tapping an existing $100 billion credit line to the Treasury.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which oversees the fund, is said to be reluctant to use its authority to borrow from the Treasury.

Under the law, the FDIC would not need permission from the Treasury to tap into a credit line of up to $100 billion. But such a step is said to be unpalatable to Sheila C. Bair, the agency chairwoman whose relations with the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, have been strained.

?Sheila Bair would take bamboo shoots under her nails before going to Tim Geithner and the Treasury for help,? said Camden R. Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers. ?She?d do just about anything before going there.?

Bankers worry that a special assessment of $5 billion to $10 billion over the next six months would crimp their profits and could push a handful of banks into deeper financial trouble or even receivership. And any new borrowing from the Treasury would be construed as a taxpayer bailout that could open the industry to a political reaction, resulting in a wave of restrictions like fresh limits on executive pay.

Any populist furor could be avoided, the thinking goes, if the government borrows instead from the banks.

?Borrowing from healthy banks, instead of the Treasury, has the advantage of keeping this in the family,? said Karen M. Thomas, executive vice president of government relations at the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group representing about 5,000 banks. ?It is much better for perceptions than having the fund borrow from somewhere else.?

Ultimately, officials say, the deposit insurance corporation could settle on a plan that replenishes the insurance fund by doing some of both: borrowing from healthy banks to shore up the shorter-term liquidity needs of the fund, and imposing a special fee on banks to increase the longer-term capital level of the fund.

Since January the FDIC has seized 94 failing banks, causing a rapid decline in the deposit insurance fund. Despite a special assessment imposed on banks a few months ago to keep the fund afloat, its cash balance now stands at about $10 billion, a third of its size at the start of the year. (Another $32 billion has been set aside for failures that officials expect to occur in the coming months.)

The fund, which stands behind $4.8 trillion in insured deposits, could be wiped out by the failure of a single large bank, although the deposit insurance corporation could always seek a taxpayer bailout by borrowing from the Treasury to stay afloat.

Spacecop 007 your whole thread title is an out and out lie.
In fact you are not being truthful at all.
Nowhere in the article does it say that the FDIC is bankrupt......
Did you even read the article???
Probably not. Most liars don`t have the capacity to tell the truth or even be truthful!

Your thread title -- Topic Title: FDIC bankrupted by bankrupt banks asks bankrupt banks for bailout . -- Is full of crap!
Of course the FDIC is asking for help from solvent banks. But nowhere in the article does it say the FDIC is bankrupt!!
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If this doesnt make you pucker up tight I dont know what will. I'm starting to get a bit concerned whats really going on behind closed doors is a systematic plan of slowly bringing down the whole system. Rather then let some of it crash they are trying to slowly let it all come down.

I dunno, but having to ask banks to bailout the FDIC just doesnt sit well with me.

Hope and Change, Hope and Change....

Article

FDIC May Ask Banks for a Bailout

Tired of the government bailing out banks? Get ready for this: officials may soon ask banks to bail out the government.

FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair
AP
FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair
Senior regulators say they are seriously considering a plan to have the nation?s healthy banks lend billions of dollars to rescue the insurance fund that protects bank depositors. That would enable the fund, which is rapidly running out of money because of a wave of bank failures, to continue to rescue the sickest banks.

The plan, strongly supported by bankers and their lobbyists, would be a major reversal of fortune.

A hallmark of the financial crisis has been the decision by successive administrations over the last year to lend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to large and small banks.

?It?s a nice irony,? said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Federal Financial Analytics, a consulting company. ?Like so much of this crisis, this is an issue that involves the least-worst options.?

Bankers and their lobbyists like the idea because it is more attractive than the alternatives: yet another across-the-board emergency assessment on them, or tapping an existing $100 billion credit line to the Treasury.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which oversees the fund, is said to be reluctant to use its authority to borrow from the Treasury.

Under the law, the FDIC would not need permission from the Treasury to tap into a credit line of up to $100 billion. But such a step is said to be unpalatable to Sheila C. Bair, the agency chairwoman whose relations with the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, have been strained.

?Sheila Bair would take bamboo shoots under her nails before going to Tim Geithner and the Treasury for help,? said Camden R. Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers. ?She?d do just about anything before going there.?

Bankers worry that a special assessment of $5 billion to $10 billion over the next six months would crimp their profits and could push a handful of banks into deeper financial trouble or even receivership. And any new borrowing from the Treasury would be construed as a taxpayer bailout that could open the industry to a political reaction, resulting in a wave of restrictions like fresh limits on executive pay.

Any populist furor could be avoided, the thinking goes, if the government borrows instead from the banks.

?Borrowing from healthy banks, instead of the Treasury, has the advantage of keeping this in the family,? said Karen M. Thomas, executive vice president of government relations at the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group representing about 5,000 banks. ?It is much better for perceptions than having the fund borrow from somewhere else.?

Ultimately, officials say, the deposit insurance corporation could settle on a plan that replenishes the insurance fund by doing some of both: borrowing from healthy banks to shore up the shorter-term liquidity needs of the fund, and imposing a special fee on banks to increase the longer-term capital level of the fund.

Since January the FDIC has seized 94 failing banks, causing a rapid decline in the deposit insurance fund. Despite a special assessment imposed on banks a few months ago to keep the fund afloat, its cash balance now stands at about $10 billion, a third of its size at the start of the year. (Another $32 billion has been set aside for failures that officials expect to occur in the coming months.)

The fund, which stands behind $4.8 trillion in insured deposits, could be wiped out by the failure of a single large bank, although the deposit insurance corporation could always seek a taxpayer bailout by borrowing from the Treasury to stay afloat.

I'm not sure you understand how the FDIC works. Here's a good explanation

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2...-the-fdic-story-wrong/
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda


Spacecop 007 your whole thread title is an out and out lie.
In fact you are not being truthful at all.
Nowhere in the article does it say that the FDIC is bankrupt......
Did you even read the article???
Probably not. Most liars don`t have the capacity to tell the truth or even be truthful!

Your thread title -- Topic Title: FDIC bankrupted by bankrupt banks asks bankrupt banks for bailout . -- Is full of crap!
Of course the FDIC is asking for help from solvent banks. But nowhere in the article does it say the FDIC is bankrupt!!

You are right, the FDIC isn't bankrupt and never will go bankrupt. It will be funded by any means necessary due to the consequences of it not covering insured deposits. However, this is a much bigger deal than a lot of posts make it to be.

The banks aren't doing nearly as good as most of the MSM is leading us to believe. They are still holding a crap ton of loans that they are valuing a LOT higher than they are worth. The reason the FDIC is having to raise more money is due to the banks gaming the system so by the time the FDIC steps in and takes over they are seeing insane losses. IF the FDIC did its job they should never lose that kind of money.

When the FDIC is taking a 30%+ loss either the bank is gaming the system or the FDIC didn't do its job. I personally think its a whole lot of both going on right now.