Might wanna keep tabs on this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071503065.html?hpid=topnews

Quote :

"As fears mount over the health of the nation's banking system, Wachovia will have to take exceptional steps to raise enough capital to meet its obligations, analysts said."

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 2:10 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 2:07:09 AM

Wachovia sucks. As soon as I get back to the States I'm closing my account with them.

7/16/2008 2:38:06 AM

damn this is good to know i guess

7/16/2008 2:43:33 AM

You fucking scaremonger. It's people like you--and Chucky "Schmucky" Schumer, D-NY--that cause runs on banks.

Your title should have been: "Got a Wachovia Account Balance of $100,000 or Less?" Then you have absolutely nothing to worry about because of FDIC coverage--and I'm guessing the $100K or less covers most people here. But let's say you have $200,000 or even $300,000--split it into two accounts of $100K each or divide it into three accounts of $100K each at different banks, you moron.


[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 3:47 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2008 3:42:43 AM

Quote :

"But let's say you have $200,000 or even $300,000--split it into two accounts of $100K each or divide it into three accounts of $100K each at different banks, you moron."

FDIC coverage is not per account - it's per institution.

Quote :

"The basic insurance amount is $100,000 per depositor, per insured bank"

Also read #12.
link

Get your shit straight before calling folks morons, and leave the partisan shit in the soapbox.

7/16/2008 3:49:07 AM

^ Um. . .

1. I indicated that it was different accounts at different banks. Can you read my quotation in your own post?

Quote :

"But let's say you have $200,000 or even $300,000--split it into two accounts of $100K each or divide it into three accounts of $100K each at different banks, you moron."

hooksaw

2. Do you think his post wasn't partisan? Give me a fucking break!

3. The "moron" comment was based on historic data related to Scuba Steve.

7/16/2008 4:00:17 AM

I was going on

Quote :

"split it into two accounts of $100K each"

All he did was post a link, and a snippet. You decided to go ahead and bold someone's party affiliation - someone who isn't even mentioned in the article.

If you'd like some directions on how to douche properly, I'm sure I can round some up for you. Make sure to go to the beach before getting rid of all that sand.

--
Also, he didn't say anything about withdrawing money, or insinuating that one should be worried about the security of one's money.

What I took away from it was more along the lines of 'wachovia isn't known for their excellently consumer-friendly policies. Expect more shittiy tricks from them, as they try to raise liquid cash. Things like NSF fees, changing due dates to generate late fees, and things of that nature'. Wachovia is skeezy. Expect them to get more so.

Fucking dingbat

7/16/2008 4:08:31 AM

Quote :

"2. Do you think his post wasn't partisan? Give me a fucking break! 3. The "moron" comment was based on historic data related to Scuba Steve. "

2. Uhh, what exactly was partisan about his post?

3. Concur.

7/16/2008 4:16:53 AM

^^ I fucking despise Wachovia--I quit banking with them years ago. But that has nothing to do with my post.

And if anybody's a "fucking dingbat" here, it's you. You misunderstand me because you didn't comprehend what I posted and then you have the stones to tell me to get my "shit straight"? Piss off--my points stand and are absolutely valid.

PS:

Quote :

"All he did was post a link, and a snippet. You decided to go ahead and bold someone's party affiliation - someone who isn't even mentioned in the article."

It doesn't matter that Chuck Schumer may not be mentioned in the article at issue. He played a key role in causing the run on IndyMac and thus the wider concerns about other banks--including Wachovia.

Feds cite Schumer in collapse of IndyMac

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/07/feds-cite-schum.html

If you were better informed, you would know this important information.

^ See 3.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 4:31 AM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 4:25:00 AM

Who knew people could get so worked up over a shitty bank

7/16/2008 5:22:51 AM

"people" don't

hooksaw does

but thanks for the heads up, Scuba Steve

7/16/2008 7:44:31 AM

^ All the points I made are valid--STFU.

7/16/2008 7:51:22 AM

From the article:

Quote :

"As fears mount over the health of the nation's banking system, Wachovia will have to take exceptional steps to raise enough capital to meet its obligations, analysts said. This does not mean that the bank will fail anytime soon or that depositors face imminent danger. "Wachovia is a fundamentally strong and stable company on solid footing . . . and is well-capitalized," said spokeswoman Christy Phillips-Brown. Company officials disclosed yesterday that the bank was raising enough money to add $4.2 billion to its reserves and $1.3 billion more to cover losses in the second quarter. Those sums are in the same league as the provisions made by the biggest banks in the country to cover losses due to the credit crisis. "

I think it will take alot more time and alot more mistakes before Wachovia bites the dust.

7/16/2008 7:54:28 AM

^ Exactly. But leave it to the scaremongers and their cohorts the panic-stricken to create the atmosphere for a run.

7/16/2008 7:58:53 AM

Quote :

" FDIC coverage is not per account - it's per institution."

that's exactly what he wrote, then you go and argue the wrong thing. interesting.

7/16/2008 8:02:44 AM

The funny thing is, she isn't exactly right either. You can have more than 100k in separate accounts if they are specific accounts. If you have a spouse, then she too can have 100k at the same institution, but I realize that's slightly outside the scope of what was stated.

7/16/2008 8:13:49 AM

spouse != you

if you wanna be technical

7/16/2008 8:47:01 AM

might just have to go ahead and move all my shit to SECU once my wife starts working for guilford county next month. how do ATM's work with SECU? i know they aren't as prevalent as other banks

7/16/2008 9:13:02 AM

Quote :

"FDIC coverage is not per account - it's per institution."

actually, it's per depositor

Quote :

"Savings, checking and other deposit accounts, when combined, are generally insured to $100,000 per depositor in each bank or thrift the FDIC insures. Deposits held in different categories of ownership – such as single or joint accounts – may be separately insured. Also, the FDIC generally provides separate coverage for retirement accounts, such as individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and Keoghs, insured up to $250,000."

http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html

y'all need to learn to research shit first

----
from secu about deposits

Quote :

"The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is an independent United States government agency that insures the deposits of credit union members nationwide. Managed by the National Credit Union Administration Board, NCUA examines, supervises and insures both federally-chartered and qualifying state-chartered credit unions. Also managed by the NCUA Board, the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) is a component of NCUA and was established by Congress on October 19, 1970 to insure member accounts. Features * Up to $100,000 basic insured amount * Includes funds in share, checking, money market share and share term certificate accounts * IRAs insured separately up to $250,000 * Health Savings Accounts are insured separately up to $100,000 * No charge for share insurance protection * Individual accounts with same accountholder totaled and insured up to $100,000 * Joint accounts insured separately from individual accounts up to $100,000"

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 9:18 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2008 9:13:04 AM

You're citing information from the NCUA.

This thread is discussing the FDIC.

Two completely different entities.

7/16/2008 9:18:30 AM

no shit, it was in response to the post above mine about SECU

i thought since he was considering moving all his money there he should understand what they guarantee first since it's NOT covered by FDIC

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 9:20 AM. Reason : ]

7/16/2008 9:19:52 AM

I would sincerely hope that any IRA's are covered by the broader $500,000 SPIC coverage...

But people who keep retirement accounts at savings & loan institutions are stupid anyway so to hell with them if they lose their money.

7/16/2008 9:31:03 AM

I heard something on the news about FDIC paying 50 cents on the dollar on amounts in excess of $100,000. That's the first I've heard about that. Is this something new that is only extended to certain, failing banks, or have I missed that detail in the past?

Plus the $100K figure. When did they set that figure? I'm sure it's been adjusted for inflation over the years, but I remember the $100K figure from when I was a kid. I'd imagine that inflation would have at least doubled that number by now.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 9:42 AM. Reason : -]

7/16/2008 9:37:09 AM

so in other words, if you have more than $100k

invest it.

7/16/2008 9:40:41 AM

^
well in other words, if you are risk adverse and want a slightly negative return over time (i believe anyway), then you need to put your money into different banks.

7/16/2008 9:48:14 AM

Quote :

"$500,000 SPIC coverage"

7/16/2008 10:23:34 AM

Quote :

"If you were better informed, you would know this important information. "

Actually...I did know this

Quote :

"^ Exactly. But leave it to the scaremongers and their cohorts the panic-stricken to create the atmosphere for a run."

I still maintain that posting a link and a snippet from an article about liquidity isn't encouraging people to make a run on the bank You haven't made an argument that it is - you just keep calling scubasteve a scaremonger, and naming schumer.

Quote :

"i know they aren't as prevalent as other banks"

1) Never had a problem finding an ATM when I needed one
2) If you can't find an ATM, buy a pack of gum at the grocery store, and get cash back

SECU is so awesome that even if they didn't have enough ATMs, you should still choose them.

^aha

7/16/2008 11:31:27 AM

I'm closing my account with them as soon as I get my direct deposit transferred to a new bank.

7/16/2008 12:11:40 PM

im going to stick with them for awhile, im not too worried for the time being.

7/16/2008 12:15:08 PM

I find it odd that reports come out that Wachovia will have issues raising enough capital to meet their obligations, so then everyone pulls out their money from Wachovia banks & they get extra fucked


I'm sticking with Wachovia b/c a) they're hands down the best bank I've been with & b) my account isn't exactly overflowing with funds as it is

7/16/2008 12:22:08 PM

I'm only closing it cause they recently screwed me out of about $200 in fees.

7/16/2008 12:26:31 PM

^they did that to a friend of mine a few months back too, never had any issue w/ their fees personally though

7/16/2008 12:27:35 PM

what kind of fees? i havent had any problems with them.

7/16/2008 12:31:17 PM

typically if you have money in your account they don't bother you. it's only if you live paycheck to paycheck and you let your funds run low that you would have to worry.

most people live one paycheck to the next, so that's where most banks make their profits.

7/16/2008 12:33:59 PM

I posted this in light of the Indymac scandal, people should at least know. While the article says that its unlikely that anything would happen soon, thats what Jim Kramer said about Bear Stearns a week before they collapsed.

Yes, Wachovia is FDIC insured, but I have a lot of bills to pay and I don't know what would happen to me in the meantime if all my money disappeared and I had to wait awhile to be reimbursed.

7/16/2008 12:38:15 PM

^^ah ok. I dont think I've ever incurred any fees with them, but I'm also never having any of my accounts get too low either.

^ how fast would something like this collapse? luckily I never outspend my paychecks so if something DID happen too fast for me I supposed I could just get my paychecks for that month in paper form and pay by the credit card by mailing a check and be fine, but it would be annoying to deal with. I still dont think they are close to shutting their doors anytime too soon.


[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2008 12:39:04 PM

^You mean as long as your company doesn't have their payroll account with Wachovia right

7/16/2008 12:53:18 PM

they could collapse at anytime. any financial institution could. as long as they aren't over extended on their credit and no one calls in their debt, they should be good to go for a while.

one problem is when institutions start buying on margin and the market gets unstable and their debt gets called in for payment. if they are upside down and owe more than they have liquid, then everyone is fucked. also if they put out bonds and no one wants to buy them, well then they have no source of income either.

7/16/2008 12:57:38 PM

NCSU's checks are with Wachovia. And there's this. . .

Quote :

"Through a new banking relationship between the AllCampus Network and Wachovia, students, faculty and staff have access to special banking programs provided by Wachovia. In addition, your AllCampus Card can be linked to your Wachovia checking account to function as an ATM card."

http://www.ncsuallcampus.com/ac/wachovia/index.html

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 1:06:15 PM

lol i've had my campus id as my debit card for the past 3 years....i seem to be the only one with it like that cause i still find businesses that are like "omg you cant use that" and i'm like bitch watch me

7/16/2008 1:09:27 PM

my employer uses wachovia for payroll

7/16/2008 1:14:15 PM

Sure, your money's insured, but I really doubt it would be painless to deal with your bank collapsing.

It's certainly something to watch.

But hey, doing so apparently has partisan implications, so I'll just stuff cotton in my ears until my debit card mysteriously stops working.

7/16/2008 2:03:49 PM

well i pretty much just use my credit cards

but no you're right that it wouldnt be painless to deal with that, but im not ready to bail out yet

7/16/2008 2:08:49 PM

They screwed us over a while back.

We went to ~$95 on a $100-minimum account (the account didn't require a minimum balance through high school and college-- apparently they added it when I merged with my wife's account). So they charged us a $75 fee for going below the minimum, then milked us for a series of tiny overdrafts that only occurred because of the fee. The balance was ~$20 after the initial fee, then they charged us four separate $30 fees for ~-$25, ~-$5, ~-$5, and ~-$5. You'd think they would've at least only charged us one overdraft fee for that, but w/e.

I think I might take my money out just to kick them while they're down.

7/16/2008 2:24:08 PM

Quote :

"NEW YORK, July 16 (Reuters) - Wachovia Corp (WB.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the fourth-largest U.S. bank, issued the following statement on Tuesday. "Wachovia is a fundamentally strong and stable company on solid footing. Wachovia has $150 billion in liquidity funding capability and is well capitalized, with more than $50 billion of Tier 1 regulatory capital at June 30, 2008. "Many of our businesses continue to experience strong underlying performance, and we remain focused on serving our customers well. Our teams are prepared to help customers navigate this difficult environment. We are intensely focused on maintaining excellent service to customers, and we are winning new business every day. In fact, Wachovia's retail banking group opened 17,700 new checking accounts and grew deposit balances by approximately $800 million in CDs and money market accounts on Monday, July 14. "

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 3:01:00 PM

i opened one yesterday with them

bb&t pissed me off for the last time.

7/16/2008 3:25:54 PM

Wall St. soars on banks' best day in 16 years

Quote :

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks rallied more than 2 percent on Wednesday, powered by the best day for banks in 16 years as unexpectedly strong results from Wells Fargo & Co relieved worry about a credit crisis spiraling out of control. A $4 drop in oil prices gave more fuel to the rally, offsetting an early report that showed U.S. consumer prices in June rose by the most since the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in September 2005. Investors poured into bank stocks, driving Wells Fargo (WFC.N) up 32.8 percent, while shares of rivals like Citigroup (C.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) jumped 13 percent or more. Wells Fargo, the fifth-largest U.S. bank and a big mortgage lender, also raised its dividend at a time when competitors are cutting them. That allayed some concerns about financial companies just days after IndyMac collapsed in one of the biggest bank failures in U.S. history. Shares of mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae (FNM.N) and Freddie Mac (FRE.N), which had lost over 60 percent of their value since the beginning of the month, were also swept up in the broad financial rally, surging 30 percent or more. Both companies got a lift from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's remarks that they are 'in no danger of failing.' 'Oil prices came down $4 a barrel and financials went up, particularly on the Wells Fargo news. One popular trade was to short financials and long energy and that trade got killed today,' said Brian Gendreau, an investment strategist in New York for ING Investment Management Americas, which recently went 'neutral' on U.S. stocks. The Dow Jones industrial average (.DJI) jumped 276.74 points, or 2.52 percent, to 11,239.28, while the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (.SPX) gained 30.45 points, or 2.51 percent, to 1,245.36. The Nasdaq Composite Index (.IXIC) shot up 69.14 points, or 3.12 percent, to 2,284.85. The three indexes had their largest single-day percentage gain since April 1 and the KBW bank index (.BKX) soared 17.27 percent, its largest one-day percentage gain since it began tracking in May 1992."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080716/bs_nm/markets_stocks_dc

"Might wanna keep tabs on this" good news--unless some of you just want to freak out some more.

7/17/2008 8:47:40 AM

Just speculation, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless:

From: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/07/tossed-to-dogs.html

Quote :

" While pondering "SEC Restricts Shorting 19 Financial Stocks" I could not help but notice the financial institutions conspicuously absent from the ruling. With that in mind let's recap the list of shorting curbs placed by the SEC. Shorting Curbs BNP Paribas Securities Corp Bank of America Corp Barclays PLC Citigroup Inc Credit Suisse Group Daiwa Securities Group Inc Deutsche Bank Group AG Allianz SE Goldman Sachs Group Inc Royal Bank ADS HSBC Holdings Plc ADS JPMorgan Chase & Co Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc Merrill Lynch & Co Inc Mizuho Financial Group Inc Morgan Stanley UBS AG Freddie Mac Fannie Mae Who Is Missing? Where is Washington Mutual (WM)? Wachovia (WB)? Were they tossed to the dogs? What about Corus Bank (CORS), Bank United (BKUNA), National City Corporation (NCC)? It is beyond all belief that naked short selling is affecting Goldman Sachs (GS) more than Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Corus Bank, Bank United, and National City Corporation. Is this a hint of the banks and brokers the Fed and SEC want to protect at all costs? Or is this some kind of setup play, an open invitation to short the others before the same stunt is pulled again. "

A possible suggestion of the Wachovia is on the small side of "too big to fail", but again take it for what you will, it just reading between the lines.

7/17/2008 9:32:03 AM

^please forgive my ignorance, but what does that all mean? i don't know what shorting curbs means.

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM. Reason : wondering bc my home loan is w/ wamu]

7/17/2008 9:57:19 AM

shorting means selling a stock (or anything else) because it falling with the intention of buying it back again once its hit the bottom. its a way to people try to make money in a falling market.

if the price doesnt drop then the seller still has to buy the stock back at the higer price...so it can be risky

[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM. Reason : f]

7/17/2008 10:01:57 AM