<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Consumerism Commentary - Latest Comments in What is Protected By the FDIC</title><link>http://consumerismcommentary.disqus.com/</link><description>None</description><atom:link href="https://consumerismcommentary.disqus.com/what_is_protected_by_the_fdic/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:09:55 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: What is Protected By the FDIC</title><link>http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/07/22/what-is-protected-by-the-fdic/#comment-21314908</link><description>&lt;p&gt;pfstock: I've updated the article above to ignore BankRate's claim of a maximum.  You're right, the FDIC is the ultimate source.  Anyone with questions should always head in that direction. I will be interested to see if BankRate corrects their published information.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Harlan Landes</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:09:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: What is Protected By the FDIC</title><link>http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/07/22/what-is-protected-by-the-fdic/#comment-21314907</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you for your response, and for your Email.  Actually, Bankrate's statement is an oversimplification.  I will contact them about their oversight, and have published a post that covers these issues in greater detail:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://pfstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/caution-fdic-misinformation-is-rampant.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://pfstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/caution-fdic-misinformation-is-rampant.html"&gt;http://pfstock.blogspot.com...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The FDIC example is for a married couple with three children.  In this case, the FDIC insurance limit for this type of testamentary account is indeed $600,000.  However, the limit would vary based on the number of account owners and number of qualifying beneficiaries, so it isn't correct to make a broad generalization here.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A qualifying beneficiary is required to setup such an account.  However, testamentary accounts are titled in this form: "Owner POD (payable on death to) Child".  Bankrate's article implies that the failure of a bank means that the money is automatically transferred to the the beneficiary (child in this case) when the FDIC insurance kicks in.  Your statement was "the insurance applies to the beneficiary, not the owner."  This is not true as the titling stipulates that the transfer only occurs after the death of the owner(s).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lastly, I think that readers who have a serious concern here should check with the FDIC to find out their own coverage, as everybody's personal situation is different.  This is a link to the FDIC's Electronic Deposit Estimator which will help determine one's coverage:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.fdic.gov/edie/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.fdic.gov/edie/"&gt;http://www.fdic.gov/edie/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I encourage readers to run their personal scenario through this calculator to be sure they are covered.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">pfstock</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:53:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: What is Protected By the FDIC</title><link>http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/07/22/what-is-protected-by-the-fdic/#comment-21314906</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Are accounts with two  benefifiaries insured for 200,000 dollars?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">L G</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:11:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: What is Protected By the FDIC</title><link>http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/07/22/what-is-protected-by-the-fdic/#comment-21314905</link><description>&lt;p&gt;pfstock: The FDIC website has &lt;a href="http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/financial/categories4.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/financial/categories4.html"&gt;information on coverage trusts&lt;/a&gt; including a number of examples, and &lt;a href="http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/sav/19991116.asp" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/sav/19991116.asp"&gt;BankRate also provides some information&lt;/a&gt;, with a definitive claim on the $600,000 limit. Is BankRate incorrect about this limit?  By the way, technically, the insurance applies to the beneficiary, not the owner.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Harlan Landes</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:37:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: What is Protected By the FDIC</title><link>http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/07/22/what-is-protected-by-the-fdic/#comment-21314904</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Flexo: I have a statement and a question for you.  You said that "Couples can also set up a trust for children or another relative, insured by the FDIC up to $600,000."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;My statement is that your term "another relative" is vague.  The FDIC has very specific rules on who can qualify as a beneficiary.  For example, a grandchild, parent, or sibling can qualify.  However, nieces, nephews, in-laws, or domestic partners would not qualify.  I advise that readers should check with the FDIC for the specifics on who can be named as a beneficiary.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;My question is how did you come up with the $600,000 number?  I've read through much of the FDIC material, and didn't see this mentioned.  Could you cite a specific example?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">pfstock</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:49:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: What is Protected By the FDIC</title><link>http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/07/22/what-is-protected-by-the-fdic/#comment-21314903</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If the entire banking system collapses, I don't think that "cash on hand" is going to do you much good anymore.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Keith</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:37:34 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>