The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing

URL:  http://boards.fool.com/crosenfield-quotprobably-you-have-to-visit-12224465.aspx

Subject:  Re: Temporary cache of cash Date:  3/17/2000  3:28 PM
Author:  JAFO31 Number:  20194 of 78168

Crosenfield: "Probably you have to visit several banks. However, note that the limit is per account. If you have a spouse or a child that you trust, you could have one account for yourself, one for you and spouse, one for you and child, etc. Or, you can have a savings account and a checking account. Then you can go to a different bank and play the same thing.
Of course you could use a money market fund; these are not insured by FDIC at all, but those mutual fund companies would turn themselves inside out if necessary to avoid the stigma of having "broken the buck"--had a share price other than $1 a share!

jrr7: "Crosenfield, where did you hear this? Every source I've heard states that the limit was per bank. So a savings & checking account wouldn't work.

However, the individual and joint accounts method would work. You also might be able to set up trust accounts: a trust for your wife with you as trustee, a trust for you with your wife as trustee. So you could have 5 accounts at 1 bank. (You, Wife, Joint, and 2 trusts)

But be *VERY* careful about transferring ownership of the funds to another person; there are bound to be tax issues involved."



Crosenfield: "My parents had multiple accounts in the same bank: my father alone, my mother alone, joint account, father with me, mother with my sister. Their attorney and the bank president (friend of my father) said this kept all the accounts FDIC insured."

The aggregation rules for FDIC insurance purposes are more than a little involved, and are not intuitive. It is most definitely not per account!!!! IOW, savings and checking account in same name are insured to 100k, not 200k.

I had occassion to learn in some level of detail the rules during the 1980's S&L crisis. I was fortunate to never have to explain to someone that they were not fully insured, but I had colleagues who had this "pleasure." Often the person had tried to follow the rules, and misunderstood, or had done what a bank employee suggested, but unfortunately, the bank employee was incorrect. That was years ago, so I do not remember the details, and the rules may have changed since then, but it merits some due diligence.

I also reiterate jrr7's alert about tax issue