That wasn't a bailout. They basically wanted the ability to borrow as much money from the treasury as they want to in case a large string of banks fail and they don't have enough money to cover it all. [strike:3q041f6p]I believe they have around 50 billion in the reserve fund to cover insured deposits.[/strike:3q041f6p] I know they pushed through a one time charge for banks, along with an increase in the cost of insurance to increase the size of the fund. They aren't strapped for cash, they just wanted a back up plan. Name one insured deposit since the beginning of this program that has not been covered. Your money is just fine.GasBandit said:I know that my savings are supposed to be backed up by the FDIC, but even they have asked for a bailout. I'm not as assured by that little "FDIC" in the bank's window as I used to be. Basically, the FDIC doesn't have any real money, all it has is accounting tricks to conjure money electronically.Dieb said:Do you mean you have a savings account with them (in which case your money is as safe as houses - actually, a hell of a lot safer than houses are) or that you've invested money with them (given it to them to manage, in which case this wouldn't be a good indicator, but it'd hardly be the first bad indicator in the last few months) or have you invested money in them (own stock of theirs, in which case you've already lost nearly all your money). Big difference between all of those.GasBandit said:It's not a cause, it's an indicator. And it's a lot easier to be nonchalant about citi when one doesn't have their savings in them.
*edit* OK, guess that is an old number, it's a lot lower now. There still isn't any reason to worry about your deposits though.