In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:03:52 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:05:12 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
micky wrote:

It was the 80s so I don't know if one can find much about Old Court
Savings and Loan on the web, but people waited years to get their money.
People had to keep working when they would have retired if they had
their saving available. Some died before they or their children got
their money. If they had no spouse or heirs, the state got it. Even
before it failed, the governor had put a limit on withdrawals, just like
Greek ATMs, 1000 a month I think.

This was a state chartered bank and part of the problem was that it
brought down the Maryland state equivalent.

Hindsight is 20:20. There are always things that can go wrong.

And I think the whole Federal Savings and Loan Insurance corporatoin
failed.

Just the state run one.

No, I just checked

This particular bank brought down just the state one. That was the
reason it took so long to get the money.

Nonetheless. There's always a reason. If you have your money in two
places, when one fails the other will probably still be running.

Or if the IRS freezes your account for some reason, they'll only freeze
enough accounts to pay what they think you owe. If that one account
contains everything you own, you'll be stuck until you work things out
with the IRS.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ce_Corporation
"In the 1980s, during the savings and loan crisis, the FSLIC became
insolvent. It was recapitalized with taxpayer money several times, with
$15 billion in 1986 and $10.75 billion in 1987; however, by 1989 it was
too insolvent to save. Pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), the FSLIC was abolished
along with the FHLBB, and the FSLIC savings and loan deposit insurance
responsibility was transferred to the FDIC. The FSLIC Resolution Fund
was created to assume all the assets and liabilities of the FSLIC, which
was to be funded by the Financing Corporation (FICO)."

It was recapitalized immediately so that the money from the
Federally guaranteed funds continued. More or less unabated.

It still failed which is what I said. If it were to have failed this
year, it might take months for such a law to get passed. Look at the
Import Export bank, etc.




I'll get back to you. At least I plan to.

The one-company standard is only if you are talking about a single
business (be it Facebook or Enron). A single provider of mutual funds
(assuming they offer enough different types of fund is not as bad.
Mutual funds (at least in theory) give you a lot of diversity within a
specific type of stock (they might own Ford, GE, Apple, and other
similar companies in the Big Cap fund for instance) and owning different
types of MF (a little big cap, a smidgen of small cap, a touch of
foreign and a bit of bund funds) covers that kind of diversity.

Of course the funds can be diverse. That wasn't what I was objecting
to. I was objecting to it being the same company handling the funds.
See my point about the IRS, and as I said, I plan to get back to you,
but it's only been an hour.