TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... 3I20130325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, I know this doesn't have much to do in the way of Texas firearms discussion, and the like...But bear with me...

This decision does have potential risk to us in the US, because of the direction of the current administration wishes to exact its policy of "spreading the wealth" mentality...Or better yet, the raping of the wealth of a citizenry...For additional revenue distribution...

Obama...

"Set course for the Euro system...Maximum warp..."

"engage"

Buckle up people...This is historic...

Seriously?!? Oh, yes, lets outright steal billions of $$ from the wealthy russian investors... that seems like a good idea...

Dave2 wrote:Seriously?!? Oh, yes, lets outright steal billions of $$ from the wealthy russian investors... that seems like a good idea...

I'm kinda hoping we'll get to see a uniquely Russian reaction to being robbed.

VMI77 wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Seriously?!? Oh, yes, lets outright steal billions of $$ from the wealthy russian investors... that seems like a good idea...

I'm kinda hoping we'll get to see a uniquely Russian reaction to being robbed.

There are a few groups of individuals that would cause me some real concerns if I were on their list. The russians are one of those groups.

Anygunanywhere

So, instead of spreading the hurt to all depositors as they were originally planning, they decided to hit the large depositors only. Sounds an awful lot like the machinations of our current administration. I wonder if the really large depositors were Russian mob figures trying to hide their money offshore? I can see the headlines now..."Another Cypriot official was found dead under mysterious circumstances this morning...."

VMI77 wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Seriously?!? Oh, yes, lets outright steal billions of $$ from the wealthy russian investors... that seems like a good idea...

I'm kinda hoping we'll get to see a uniquely Russian reaction to being robbed.

Red Dawn over Cyprus???

How would you feel if someone took 25% to 40% of the money out of your accounts? Most people would call that highway robbery. I suspect those wealthy depositors won't take it lying down. Although there may be some folks lying down permanently before this is all over.

Why should depositors be hurt at all? What happens to the banks? What happens to the shareholders of said banks? What happens to the other unsecured creditors of said banks?

The shareholders ought to be wiped out. That is the definition of a bank failure.... the assets do not cover the liabilities, so shareholder equity is gone. What about junior creditors, bond holders, in order of priority? Other unsecured creditors?

How does the government's misadventures impact what are otherwise private banks, at all?

gthaustex wrote:I wonder if the really large depositors were Russian mob figures trying to hide their money offshore?

Certainly. Like Vladimir Putin and his cronies.

This is scary beyond words.
A bunch of bureaucrats literally "taking" your savings. "Sorry, this is ours now".
Anyone who thinks it "can't happen here" isn't thinking hard enough.

And the first step is diminishing your 2A rights.

It's already happened here, in a way. Auto bailout, banks bailout....
"Secured" creditors and taxpayers took a back seat to unions and insiders who got made whole.
The US legal system is nothing when the government wants what you have.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... chief.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ahhhh, the plot thickens...

Or at least the soup...

See, I told you so...

anygunanywhere wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Seriously?!? Oh, yes, lets outright steal billions of $$ from the wealthy russian investors... that seems like a good idea...

I'm kinda hoping we'll get to see a uniquely Russian reaction to being robbed.

There are a few groups of individuals that would cause me some real concerns if I were on their list. The russians are one of those groups.

Anygunanywhere

Yeah...they do justice in let's just say "unique" methods. I would not want to be on their naughty list!

stevie_d_64 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... chief.html

Ahhhh, the plot thickens...

Or at least the soup...

See, I told you so...

Let's try to look at this logically, rationally...

In this country (USA) private accounts are generally backed by FDIC insurance, up to a specific amount.
Here are the current guidelines (summary): http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/dis/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So... my wife and I are covered up to USD $500,000 on our accounts with each financial institution PLUS another USD $250,000 with the same financial institution on accounts that are not jointly held (FDIC insurance coverage is based on how the accounts are titled/held... If we have 3 joint accounts, the cap is $500K total, but if we have 1 joint account and 2 individual accounts, the effective cap is $1 million [$500K joint + $250K hers + $250K mine]). If I go to another bank I can apply the same logic and get another $1m in deposit insurance.

I had an opportunity to test this a few years ago when the banks started failing. I worked for a company that kept deposits in a "Sweep" account that was an umbrella account. Underneath, the bank managed cash in a way that outsourced the funds to a series of other banks, never keeping more than $100,000 (the FDIC limit at that time) in any one bank under any one titled account. When we looked at our statement from Chase, for example, we'd see $75,000 in RBS, $80,000 in Wells Fargo, etc. and the rolled up total equaled the balance on our statement.

We saw 3 of these banks seized by FDIC when banks started failing. We lost access to the cash in any one bank for 2, 3 or 4 days, until the seizure was settled and the ownership was rolled (WaMu became Chase, for example).

In the Eurozone, deposits are insured up to €100,000 (LINK). I'm not sure if that is per account or per depositor or per institution per depositor.

So.... as much as it sounds horrible that uninsured depositors will get dinged for up to 40% of their deposits, the depositors agreed to the risks when they failed to manage their money more soundly. They put their cash into Cypriat banks, insured to only €100,000 and failed to apply any financial management to reduce the risk.

Yes, I feel bad for them... but.. as I read more on what is actually happening I'm gradually coming around to a "Caveat Emptor" attitude about this.... People with lots of cash should be smart enough to manage that cash more carefully. So far, I don't see where any insurance promises were broken... Unlike our auto and financials bailouts where the foundations of US contract law were completely swept away.

RoyGBiv wrote: Let's try to look at this logically, rationally...

In this country (USA) private accounts are generally backed by FDIC insurance, up to a specific amount.
Here are the current guidelines (summary): http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/dis/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So... my wife and I are covered up to USD $500,000 on our accounts with each financial institution PLUS another USD $250,000 with the same financial institution on accounts that are not jointly held (FDIC insurance coverage is based on how the accounts are titled/held... If we have 3 joint accounts, the cap is $500K total, but if we have 1 joint account and 2 individual accounts, the effective cap is $1 million [$500K joint + $250K hers + $250K mine]). If I go to another bank I can apply the same logic and get another $1m in deposit insurance.

I had an opportunity to test this a few years ago when the banks started failing. I worked for a company that kept deposits in a "Sweep" account that was an umbrella account. Underneath, the bank managed cash in a way that outsourced the funds to a series of other banks, never keeping more than $100,000 (the FDIC limit at that time) in any one bank under any one titled account. When we looked at our statement from Chase, for example, we'd see $75,000 in RBS, $80,000 in Wells Fargo, etc. and the rolled up total equaled the balance on our statement.

We saw 3 of these banks seized by FDIC when banks started failing. We lost access to the cash in any one bank for 2, 3 or 4 days, until the seizure was settled and the ownership was rolled (WaMu became Chase, for example).

In the Eurozone, deposits are insured up to €100,000 (LINK). I'm not sure if that is per account or per depositor or per institution per depositor.

So.... as much as it sounds horrible that uninsured depositors will get dinged for up to 40% of their deposits, the depositors agreed to the risks when they failed to manage their money more soundly. They put their cash into Cypriat banks, insured to only €100,000 and failed to apply any financial management to reduce the risk.

Yes, I feel bad for them... but.. as I read more on what is actually happening I'm gradually coming around to a "Caveat Emptor" attitude about this.... People with lots of cash should be smart enough to manage that cash more carefully. So far, I don't see where any insurance promises were broken... Unlike our auto and financials bailouts where the foundations of US contract law were completely swept away.

That's hogwash...what they are doing is theft, nothing less. What would you think if they had passed their first proposal of taking up to 40% off the top of everyone's account, whether it was insured or not?

What if you "deposited" your car in my garage for safe keeping and because I was deeply in debt, I decided sell your car as scrap metal to pay it down. I kept the tires and gave those back to you because that's all I had to "insure".

Those deposits are not their property. They do not get to decide to keep them in order to pay down the debt of the business. The business has income and expenses and it is the one who has the responsibility to "be smart enough to manage that cash more carefully."

With these kinds of options on the table, it's no wonder why some politicians are saying "we don't have a debt crisis."

As I understand it, It is the government taking the funds. If the banks were to fail or some other legit reason, then the insurance would kick in, that is different than what is happening.

This admininstration here has also kicked around the idea of taking from 401K's and other retirment accounts - at least rumored to .

geekwagun wrote:As I understand it, It is the government taking the funds. If the banks were to fail or some other legit reason, then the insurance would kick in, that is different than what is happening.

This admininstration here has also kicked around the idea of taking from 401K's and other retirment accounts - at least rumored to .

The day the government even entertains the idea of seriously raiding 401k's, or our bank accounts, there will be atomic wedgies applied early and often...

We are not quite there yet...But you can almost hear the salivating from the liberals around this country...