Our current financial mess is YOUR fault.

[RandomGuy]

I want somebody's head on a stick.

When we were less "civilized", the heads of criminals or traitors were often put on pikes on the castle walls to deter others from doing the same. Hundreds/thousands of years later, this seemingly effective practice has been deemed to be barbaric.

So it is.

That doesn't mean that I don't want the risk managers, underwriters, and CEOs whose stupidity introduced us to the words " a few trillion" when it comes to talking about the full scale of the financial losses and government bailouts to take some of the fall for this.

BUT

Often I hear a lot of people complaining about their 401k's and investments having lost value.

Many on the left like to blame the CEOs of the company, and say that we should wipe out the greedy shareholders who let the CEOs get away with taking insane risks.

Who are those shareholders?

We are.

We have, for too long, abdicated our oversight of the companies we invest in to the rubber stamp corporate boards whose only function is to back the management of the company no matter what.

If you can't name at least 2 members of the Board of Directors in the largest company of your stock portfolio, you can't bitch about losing money. Your disinterest in managing your investments is as much to blame for this crisis as those CEOs.

If you shoved money into a mutual fund, and then let that mutual fund simply invest cash on autopilot without looking out for your interests on the Board of Directors of the companies in that mutual fund, you are just as much to blame for this mess as anybody else.

We are a nation of shareholders. The vast majority of all stocks in this country are ultimately held by none other than the vast majority of us, through our various retirement fund vehicles.

It is up to the government to do something about it now, as we taxpayers now become the activist shareholders that we as shareholders SHOULD have been to begin with.

Yes, I truly think that somebody's head should be on a stick for this. If you rob so many people of their money and savings, that is at least as bad as sticking a gun to the temple of a convenience store clerk and pulling the trigger for $50. It won't literally happen, but I want to know why so many of the executives of the major financial institutions still have their jobs.

I realize that many of you don't want to take your share of responsibility for this, but ultimately, your stock losses are just as much your fault as the executives.

You can either keep bitching about losing money in bubbles like this, or start giving your money to people who actually give a shit about the companies they invest in.

If, in your anger, you haven't asked your mutual fund manager why or if they bought into the plans of so many financial institutions' managment, you need to start asking, through your chosen financial representatives, those tough questions.

If you don't hold the Boards of Directors responsible and remove them for the actions of the management they themselves selected, then what motivation is there for future managers or Boards of Directors to worry about the silly shareholders' long term interests.

We have let our myopia of next quarter's profits cause us to stumble into a pit that we will be spending years, if not decades, climing out of.

Shareholders, unite before it is too late!

--Randomguy (yes, I did write it)

[angrydude]

the stock market, as the American economy is constructed, is a ponzi scheme.

Its akin to bidding up the price of baseball cards with debt. brilliant.

[LockBeard]

Government programs are ponzi schemes. Nothing new here.

Just stick with mutual funds and decades of compounded interest. What else should people do with money? Let it sit around and watch it inflate into nothing?

This article is like saying, YOU the people need to start actually paying attention to government and vote out the morons in Washington. In reality, we know not enough people do or will. Good message, makes sense, people should,....but they won't so oh well.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't own any 401Ks, I don't own a house, I have government health care (go military), and the only debt I currently have is my car debt.

My head is safe!

Edit: In fact, I don't mind this too much at all on a personal level. I'm a salaried employee, and the way that prices are dropping, I might actually be able to afford a house! In fact, I just used savings to buy a 5 day trip to Disneyworld, the first vacation my wife and I have been able to afford. I'm being patriotic!

[LnGrrrR]

Are Lockbeard and Angrydude the same person? Or just some weird sort of synchronicity? lol

[PixelPusher]

I have government health care...



BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(hisssssssssss!!!!!)
(rasberries!)



(go military)




...oh, um...I mean "Thank you for your service to our country".

[CosmicCowboy]

I've done my part. Counting my house note I still have about 2 1/2 years of salary of debt.

[DarrinS]

If you shoved money into a mutual fund, and then let that mutual fund simply invest cash on autopilot without looking out for your interests on the Board of Directors of the companies in that mutual fund, you are just as much to blame for this mess as anybody else.


If, in your anger, you haven't asked your mutual fund manager why or if they bought into the plans of so many financial institutions' managment, you need to start asking, through your chosen financial representatives, those tough questions.




The managers of these funds are elected. It's unlikely that a member is ever going to have direct communication with the fund manager. As a member, all you really have visibility into is what particular companies that fund invests in. You have no real influence on the day-to-day trading that goes on. People that want to micro-manage their investments probably shouldn't be in mutual funds.

[LnGrrrR]

Pixelpusher,

:rollin:lmao

[Winehole23]

People that want to micro-manage their investments probably shouldn't be in mutual funds. Clever perhaps, but beside the point.

Comparing competent corporate governance to counterproductive meddling might be a tell. It gives us a clue what you are thinking, but does not really follow the OP.

[DarrinS]

Clever perhaps, but beside the point.

Comparing competent corporate governance to counterproductive meddling might be a tell. It gives us a clue what you are thinking, but does not really follow the OP.


I was only addressing this point.



If you shoved money into a mutual fund, and then let that mutual fund simply invest cash on autopilot without looking out for your interests on the Board of Directors of the companies in that mutual fund, you are just as much to blame for this mess as anybody else.



In a mutual fund, you elect the fund manager and hope that he/she has the good sense to invest wisely. That's just how they are set up.

[Winehole23]

In a mutual fund, you elect the fund manager and hope that he/she has the good sense to invest wisely. That's just how they are set up.Fair enough. It's a good point. nm.

[smeagol]

I want somebody's head on a stick.

When we were less "civilized", the heads of criminals or traitors were often put on pikes on the castle walls to deter others from doing the same. Hundreds/thousands of years later, this seemingly effective practice has been deemed to be barbaric.

So it is.

That doesn't mean that I don't want the risk managers, underwriters, and CEOs whose stupidity introduced us to the words " a few trillion" when it comes to talking about the full scale of the financial losses and government bailouts to take some of the fall for this.

BUT

Often I hear a lot of people complaining about their 401k's and investments having lost value.

Many on the left like to blame the CEOs of the company, and say that we should wipe out the greedy shareholders who let the CEOs get away with taking insane risks.

Who are those shareholders?

We are.

We have, for too long, abdicated our oversight of the companies we invest in to the rubber stamp corporate boards whose only function is to back the management of the company no matter what.

If you can't name at least 2 members of the Board of Directors in the largest company of your stock portfolio, you can't bitch about losing money. Your disinterest in managing your investments is as much to blame for this crisis as those CEOs.

If you shoved money into a mutual fund, and then let that mutual fund simply invest cash on autopilot without looking out for your interests on the Board of Directors of the companies in that mutual fund, you are just as much to blame for this mess as anybody else.

We are a nation of shareholders. The vast majority of all stocks in this country are ultimately held by none other than the vast majority of us, through our various retirement fund vehicles.

It is up to the government to do something about it now, as we taxpayers now become the activist shareholders that we as shareholders SHOULD have been to begin with.

Yes, I truly think that somebody's head should be on a stick for this. If you rob so many people of their money and savings, that is at least as bad as sticking a gun to the temple of a convenience store clerk and pulling the trigger for $50. It won't literally happen, but I want to know why so many of the executives of the major financial institutions still have their jobs.

I realize that many of you don't want to take your share of responsibility for this, but ultimately, your stock losses are just as much your fault as the executives.

You can either keep bitching about losing money in bubbles like this, or start giving your money to people who actually give a shit about the companies they invest in.

If, in your anger, you haven't asked your mutual fund manager why or if they bought into the plans of so many financial institutions' managment, you need to start asking, through your chosen financial representatives, those tough questions.

If you don't hold the Boards of Directors responsible and remove them for the actions of the management they themselves selected, then what motivation is there for future managers or Boards of Directors to worry about the silly shareholders' long term interests.

We have let our myopia of next quarter's profits cause us to stumble into a pit that we will be spending years, if not decades, climing out of.

Shareholders, unite before it is too late!

Do you seriously believe the run-of-the-mill investor has time to do all this?

My advice is pick a Mutual Fund that you trust and hope they have the time to do it.

Otherwise, go with government securities . . .

[Clandestino]

I didn't own any 401Ks, I don't own a house, I have government health care (go military), and the only debt I currently have is my car debt.

My head is safe!

Edit: In fact, I don't mind this too much at all on a personal level. I'm a salaried employee, and the way that prices are dropping, I might actually be able to afford a house! In fact, I just used savings to buy a 5 day trip to Disneyworld, the first vacation my wife and I have been able to afford. I'm being patriotic!

Do you have a tsp?

[Blake]

I want somebody's head on a stick.


Our current financial mess is YOUR fault.


whoaaaa.......easy.....

I want somebody's head on a stick too, but the financial mess is not MY fault.

[Clandestino]

truly, the financial mess is a bit of everyone's fault. but who cares... the market always comes back. It will, and prices haven't been this low in 12 years. it is a buiying opportunity. has it hit rock bottom? probably not, but it will eventually rebound. the market has only ever dropped more than 20% 6x in history since 1929. 2008 being one of them. it has risen up more than 205 over 31x... i'm betting on the positive. most people are pessimists

[LnGrrrR]

Do you have a tsp?

I just started investing a few months ago, when the market tanked. :) lol

[RandomGuy]

the stock market, as the American economy is constructed, is a ponzi scheme.

Its akin to bidding up the price of baseball cards with debt. brilliant.

There is a difference between prudent debt and imprudent debt.

Done correctly, borrowing money WILL maximize returns.

[mogrovejo]

So, if it's your fault, why are you allowing Obama to steal the money from your grandchildren in an attempt to bail you out of this?

Anyway, artificially low interest rates produce bad investments. It's always been that way. It'll happen again in the future.

The shareholders should held the management responsible, obviously. However, the reason why so many of them still have their jobs is quite easy to explain: thanks to the government, that won't allow their companies to fail. And by not allowing that, the government is also giving the shareholders an incentive to not care more in the future: making your appeal moot.

[DAF86]

Financial crisis? What financial crisis?

Didn't the US congress aproved a 700.000 mil dolars bail out plan to try to fix this "crisis"?

I have a better idea: distribute those 700.000 mil among the 6.700 mil people that live in this planet and we'd all have around 104 mil each. I think nobody would be on crisis then.

[smeagol]

Financial crisis? What financial crisis?

Didn't the US congress aproved a 700.000 mil dolars bail out plan to try to fix this "crisis"?

I have a better idea: distribute those 700.000 mil among the 6.700 mil people that live in this planet and we'd all have around 104 mil each. I think nobody would be on crisis then.

:nope

[DarkReign]

financial crisis? What financial crisis?

Didn't the us congress aproved a 700 billion dolars bail out plan to try to fix this "crisis"?

I have a better idea: Distribute those 700 billion among the 6.7 billion people that live in this planet and we'd all have around 104 mil each. I think nobody would be on crisis then.

fify

[clambake]

hey DR, what happened with that other thing?

[DarkReign]

God, the more I look at that above post, the more I think the math is wrong.

[DarkReign]

hey DR, what happened with that other thing?

It basically boils down to this:

I either resign myself that the lost items are gone for good or charge the house-sitter with robbery.

Ive resigned myself to the lost items being gone for good. I just couldnt have a clean conscience going the "other" ways I was going to.

[clambake]

I just couldnt have a clean conscience going the "other" ways I was going to.

it ain't worth it, unless family were violated. good choice.

[DAF86]

:nope

You have a better solution?

[LnGrrrR]

God, the more I look at that above post, the more I think the math is wrong.

It's because it would be about 104 dollars each. Not million.

700,000,000,000 divided by 6,770,000,000 = 103.397....

Now, if you gave it out only to the people in the US, you'd end up with...

700,000,000,000 divided by 306, 121, 111 = 2286.676

Which is a little bit better. Still I don't think giving every American two thousand dollars would help this crisis much.

[RandomGuy]

It's because it would be about 104 dollars each. Not million.

700,000,000,000 divided by 6,770,000,000 = 103.397....

Now, if you gave it out only to the people in the US, you'd end up with...

700,000,000,000 divided by 306, 121, 111 = 2286.676

Which is a little bit better. Still I don't think giving every American two thousand dollars would help this crisis much.

It all depends on how often that 2000 changes hands in the course of a year, i.e. the "velocity" of that cash.

If it is given to me, and I pay a bill, and the entity that I pay that money to goes out and hires/pays somebody who pays a bill or buys something, and that money goes someplace else...

Who knows. I think we need to save more, and should slow down our cash a bit anyways. We have spent too much and saved to little, and that implies that I think money is moving around a bit too fast.

[Blake]

Financial crisis? What financial crisis?

Didn't the US congress aproved a 700.000 mil dolars bail out plan to try to fix this "crisis"?

I have a better idea: distribute those 700.000 mil among the 6.700 mil people that live in this planet and we'd all have around 104 mil each. I think nobody would be on crisis then.

did you attend an American public school?

[LnGrrrR]

It all depends on how often that 2000 changes hands in the course of a year, i.e. the "velocity" of that cash.

If it is given to me, and I pay a bill, and the entity that I pay that money to goes out and hires/pays somebody who pays a bill or buys something, and that money goes someplace else...

Who knows. I think we need to save more, and should slow down our cash a bit anyways. We have spent too much and saved to little, and that implies that I think money is moving around a bit too fast.

Agreed. It's always pissed me off that you need to prove you can handle debt before you can get credit. You're telling me if I save up money in order to buy something with cash, that my credit score won't be as high as someone who purchased the same item with credit? It's ridiculous.

I could've saved more in my early 20's, but I also made sure not to live beyond my means. I plan on using my savings to buy now or in the near future, while prices are low. (Having a kid and moving doesn't help either... perfect time to replace our bedroom set, says the wife, and I can't argue that much.)

[DarkReign]

It's because it would be about 104 dollars each. Not million.

700,000,000,000 divided by 6,770,000,000 = 103.397....

Now, if you gave it out only to the people in the US, you'd end up with...

700,000,000,000 divided by 306, 121, 111 = 2286.676

Which is a little bit better. Still I don't think giving every American two thousand dollars would help this crisis much.

I knew it. Slow day for me.

[DAF86]

It's because it would be about 104 dollars each. Not million.

700,000,000,000 divided by 6,770,000,000 = 103.397....

Now, if you gave it out only to the people in the US, you'd end up with...

700,000,000,000 divided by 306, 121, 111 = 2286.676

Which is a little bit better. Still I don't think giving every American two thousand dollars would help this crisis much.

Lol! You're right that's what I get for listening to "Canal 13", I can't bealive they fucked up so bad maybe I put some numbers wrong.

[DAF86]

did you attend an American public school?

No, I watch TV :lol

P/S: The fact remains: distribute all the wealth in the world among the people and I'm sure nobody would be on crisis.

[LnGrrrR]

No, I watch TV :lol

P/S: The fact remains: distribute all the wealth in the world among the people and I'm sure nobody would be on crisis.

Communist! Socialist! Booooo!

:D

It's alright, we all have 'dumb days' from time to time.

[Blake]

No, I watch TV :lol

even better


P/S: The fact remains: distribute all the wealth in the world among the people and I'm sure nobody would be on crisis.

:lol

stop listening to your TV.

[DAF86]

:lol

stop listening to your TV.

That's just my common sense. I want to bealive that there are enough resources in the world to fulfill the needs of every human been.

[DarrinS]

We're so fortunate to have a moral compass like Barney Frank.

[Blake]

That's just my common sense. I want to bealive that there are enough resources in the world to fulfill the needs of every human been.

I'd love nothing more than to see every human on this planet have everything they need to be happy.

Flat equal distribution is not an answer, however, unless you are Karl Marx.

[DarrinS]

You're telling me if I save up money in order to buy something with cash, that my credit score won't be as high as someone who purchased the same item with credit? It's ridiculous.

Uhh, that's why it's called a "credit" score.

[sook]

omg hahahhahahahahahahaha :lmao @ pixelpusher

[LnGrrrR]

That's just my common sense. I want to bealive that there are enough resources in the world to fulfill the needs of every human been.

Until warlords with guns take those resources, or conmen trick them out of it... etc etc :D

[LnGrrrR]

Uhh, that's why it's called a "credit" score.

Yes, and it's stupid. Because loans are mostly dependent on that score, and not on your buying history/capability. (That's what I've experienced anyways.. please correct me if I'm wrong.)

[DarrinS]

Yes, and it's stupid. Because loans are mostly dependent on that score, and not on your buying history/capability. (That's what I've experienced anyways.. please correct me if I'm wrong.)


Let's say I own a bar and you've been a loyal patron for years. I'm more likely to let you run a tab than someone I don't know from Adam.

Right?

[angrydude]

There is a difference between prudent debt and imprudent debt.

Done correctly, borrowing money WILL maximize returns.


true. Short term you can make a lot of money.

But you can't just leave your money in there (like most Americans do with retirement accounts) and expect it to keep going up. Of course the market going to come crashing down because the system is unsustainable.

You can make a lot of money in a ponzi scheme too as long as you don't wait too long.

[RandomGuy]

There is a difference between prudent debt and imprudent debt.

Done correctly, borrowing money WILL maximize returns.



true. Short term you can make a lot of money.

But you can't just leave your money in there (like most Americans do with retirement accounts) and expect it to keep going up. Of course the market going to come crashing down because the system is unsustainable.

Not short term but long term.

I was speaking from a technical, finance aspect of corporate capital structure.

Equity funding is pretty expensive due to the risk involved to the provider of the money/capital. Debt funding is somewhat less risky/expensive, because you are placed ahead of the stock holders when it comes to liquidation.

A good company will have a mix of both stock and bonds when raising capital, because the average of the two is cheaper than pure equity.

The hard part is figuring out what the right mix of debt and equity is, and that varies from company to company.

[RandomGuy]

Let's say I own a bar and you've been a loyal patron for years. I'm more likely to let you run a tab than someone I don't know from Adam.

Right?

mmm bar, beer, Adam....

Sam Adam's cream stout...

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/1879

[LnGrrrR]

Let's say I own a bar and you've been a loyal patron for years. I'm more likely to let you run a tab than someone I don't know from Adam.

Right?

Not quite the same.

I think a proper analogy would be if I walked into your bar, and said, "Hey, I've owed bars down the street before some money, and I've always paid them back on time. So can I start a tab with you?"

I think it would be better if credit score had less overall impact than things such as monthly pay, defaults, amount of savings, and other better economic indicators.

[DarrinS]

As to the OP, I think there's a LOT of blame to go around.


Behold the magical threshold salary of 250K. You think only CEO's and executives make this kind of money? I have known realtors and idependent mortgage brokers that make this kind of money -- and for doing WHAT?


If you've bought a house in recent years, the signs of impending doom were all around you.


You get a real estate scam artist, er, agent, to help you find a home. These worthless people get 3-6% commission. You can save yourself a lot of time using a site like realtor.com, but you still probably have to deal with the seller's agent. By the way, realtors HATE websites like realtor.com. More to the point, they hate that "normal" people have access to them.

After you decide to buy a house, you might end up dealing with a mortgage brokers. These guys get their fees from you AND the bank. I'm sure more than a few of these people have bent the rules here and there. Why not? They don't have anything to lose if you default. The lender assumes the risk.

Then, you go to the title company to close on your house. There, you sign about 3 million pieces of paper, approving all kinds of fees to all kinds of people that did absolutely jack squat for you in the process.

Bottom line, there are too many people in our society that want money for doing nothing. People want it all, they want it now, and they want to expend the least effort to get it.


THAT, is the crux of our problem -- and it applies to people from all economic strata of our country.

[DarrinS]

Not quite the same.

I think a proper analogy would be if I walked into your bar, and said, "Hey, I've owed bars down the street before some money, and I've always paid them back on tim. So can I start a tab with you?"

I think it would be better if credit score had less overall impact than things such as monthly pay, defaults, amount of savings, and other better economic indicators.


Perhaps, but there's got to be some reason why the system is designed this way.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps, but there's got to be some reason why the system is designed this way.If there were some legit way to gerrymander the ranks of the so-called creditworthy to exclude nonconformists who are otherwise completely creditworthy, that would be a profitable proposition for lenders would it not?

[baseline bum]

mmm bar, beer, Adam....

Sam Adam's cream stout...

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/1879

Check these three also if you like stouts:

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/132/1118
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/132/359
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/140/283

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll have to try that Cream Stout if I find it.

[Winehole23]

WH23 endorses porters:

http://www.anchorbrewing.com/beers/anchorporter.htm

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/113/572

[angrydude]

Not short term but long term.

I was speaking from a technical, finance aspect of corporate capital structure.

Equity funding is pretty expensive due to the risk involved to the provider of the money/capital. Debt funding is somewhat less risky/expensive, because you are placed ahead of the stock holders when it comes to liquidation.

A good company will have a mix of both stock and bonds when raising capital, because the average of the two is cheaper than pure equity.

The hard part is figuring out what the right mix of debt and equity is, and that varies from company to company.


But who really buys corporate bonds to hold anymore? Maybe 20 years ago, but now Interest rates are so low I'm not sure its even worth it anymore from a buyer's point of view. I'm sure good ones exist somewhere, but that's hardly what is pushed on the public day after day after day.

And exec's sure do love paying themselves with options to undercut everyone else.

Stocks only work when there are enough buyers--or their inflated dollars--going in to push the prices up. Otherwise it wouldn't grow very fast like it didn't for the better part of the century. Hell, if that were the case we'd actually have to grow the economy and make shit for the market to go up. Because America's "money" is basically the debt we owe foreigners, once the debt runs out so does the equity.

[AFBlue]

I have put all of my saved money in a FDIC-insured bank savings account. I haven't enjoyed all of the crazy gains of the past few years nor have I ripped my hair out over the losses of the past few months.

When I get enough saved up, I will eventually put some of those funds into a CD or something...but I never understood the gamble of playing the stock market.

[Yonivore]

I have put all of my saved money in a FDIC-insured bank savings account. I haven't enjoyed all of the crazy gains of the past few years nor have I ripped my hair out over the losses of the past few months.

When I get enough saved up, I will eventually put some of those funds into a CD or something...but I never understood the gamble of playing the stock market.
And, if FDIC goes broke -- almost there -- and your bank goes belly-up?

[AFBlue]

And, if FDIC goes broke -- almost there -- and your bank goes belly-up?

My bank is USAA

[angrydude]

I don't think the govt. would ever ppl lose all their money though. They'd start a world war or just pump it and pump it until we see massive inflation and the value of all our money cut in half or worse. Then interest rates would have to go way back up to balance it out. either that or Armageddon for America.

Then we adopt China's new world reserve currency or some shit like that and have brenton woods 3 or something.

[ChumpDumper]

And, if FDIC goes broke -- almost there -- and your bank goes belly-up?You need to check the FDIC reserves again.

[Winehole23]

S. 541 (http://www.americanbanker.com/usb_article.html?id=2009030972R6LGU6) would raise the FDIC's credit line to $100 billion, and allow a temporary $500 billion line of borrowing.

[Winehole23]

The agency’s deposit insurance fund (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=azBp5O5jIujw&refer=us), used to reimburse customers of closed banks, tumbled 45 percent to $18.9 billion in the quarter from $34.6 billion in the preceding period following the closing of 25 lenders last year.


The FDIC insures deposits at 8,305 institutions with $13.9 trillion in assets. The 252 lenders on the FDIC’s “problem list” had assets of $159 billion at the end of the fourth quarter, about 1.1 percent of total asserts, an increase from the $116 billion at the end of the third quarter, the agency said on Feb. 26.

[ChumpDumper]

Reserves are back up this past quarter due to some steep premium increases and as mentioned above the FDIC's borrowing limit will be greatly increased. I'm not worried about my money in my banks.

[RandomGuy]

And, if FDIC goes broke -- almost there -- and your bank goes belly-up?

Then the FDIC will simply levy more costs on the rest of the banking system, through the premiums it charges.

It has already hiked the premium, and cleared the way for government loans to cover losses until it can build up its reserves again.

The FDIC will not go bankrupt.

[johnsmith]

RG, you can't stand it when your threads move towards the bottom of the page can you?

[Winehole23]

Reserves are back up this past quarter due to some steep premium increases . I could not find this information. How did you?

[RandomGuy]

I could not find this information. How did you?


FDIC to boost insurance fund
With balance on fund that guarantees bank deposits at its lowest level since 1995, FDIC plans to charge riskier banks higher fees to increase reserves.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/26/news/economy/FDIC_fund/

Hmm.

One could try here:
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/statistical/stats/2008dec/FDIC.html

But the data for the last year or three is not in the table.

Here is probably the best place to find such data, it is a link from the CFO's report to the FDIC board:

http://www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/corporate/cfo_report_4qtr_08/index.html

[RandomGuy]

With an insurance fund, there are three ways to increase ending surplus/reserves.

Raise premiums, reduce administrative overhead, reduce claim amounts.

There have been enough accounts of the FDIC increasing its premiums to be able to generally say that they are increasing their reserves.

BUT

The funds will probably run out, requiring capital injections in the form of loans from the US govt.

Over time, the FDIC will increase its premiums to cover these extraordinary losses, but suffice it to say that if they are wiped out they were undercharging, and will have to make up for that going forwards.

Look at the little red line in this graph, showing the ending surplus/reserves. Once that hits zero, likely by the end of this quarter, the fund is technically insolvent.

http://www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/corporate/cfo_report_4qtr_08/image/dif_fund_bal.gif

Most recent quarterly results will likely be unavailable for a few weeks. I don't know the precise reporting time-table, but assembling financials is not exactly a quick process.

[Winehole23]

I can see an educated guess based on announced premium hikes, but no information in any of your links is more recent than 12/31/08. Chumpy said there was a rise in DIF reserves during the last quarter. Was there?

[RandomGuy]

I can see an educated guess based on announced premium hikes, but no information in any of your links is more recent than 12/31/08. Chumpy said there was a rise in DIF reserves during the last quarter. Was there?

He was probably echoing the press reports that I have seen as well.

Given that their most recent quarterly loss was $16Bn with an accelerating loss trend, and they had $19Bn surplus left at the end of 2008, it is highly likely that they are technically insolvent right now.

The FDIC sinkhole will suck up a lot of loans from the gov't, I would guess. The thing about this is that the FDIC, through its premiums, will charge the remaining banks enough to pay these loans back with interest.

The healthy banks will therefore bear a good chunk of the burden of the failed banks, through their FDIC insurance premiums, biting into their profitability for the foreseeable future.

[Winehole23]

Given that their most recent quarterly loss was $16Bn with an accelerating loss trend, and they had $19Bn surplus left at the end of 2008, it is highly likely that they are technically insolvent right now.This conclusion is the exact opposite of what Chumpy led us to believe, but after all it just a speculation. He could be right.

21 or so banks have failed so far this year, but it probably takes awhile to discover the true extent of the losses and book them.

[RandomGuy]

This conclusion is the exact opposite of what Chumpy led us to believe, but after all it just a speculation. He could be right.

21 or so banks have failed so far this year, but it probably takes awhile to discover the true extent of the losses and book them.

The FDIC plans on putting down about 2 banks a week to my understanding.

They will need money from somewhere.

Good thing is that the government will get some interest on the loans it give the FDIC.