Anyone Know Insurance Company V. Bank Failure Rate?

You're right on the money, Rick! (pun intended):twitchy:

This is the point raised by SportsNut... the Fractional Reserve System is the problem. Banks loan out more than they hold in reserve (demand deposits). They were able to get away with it until the call came in to cover those obligations. They have always expected FDIC to cover their untenable (loan to deposit ratios of 32:1 or more!) monetary policy.:swoon:

Insurance companies, on the other hand, are required to hold the amount liable in secure funds (close to 1:1 ratio). Even if they go BK, their customers are covered because of the state guaranty association, and they are audited regularly.

Now, if we just had regulation of banks like we do in insurance, we wouldn't be in the jam we are. Chris Cox was asked to include regulation of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) over a year ago (or longer), but he refused. Had he done his job, it is possible none of the dominoes would have fallen as they did. He is the one Republican most responsible for the election loss than any other... with the economy in full decline, the Dems got the upper hand. McCain was correct in that Cox should have been fired right then and there.... as it is, he will be replaced with the new Administration, but alas, too late to do any good politically.:nah:
Now the challenge is how to dig out of this humongous hole. We can't spend our way out, but you can't tell a Democrat that!:no:

Boy you can say that again!. Nationally and locally it seems that there is a pattern with this type of thing with the Dems. Our Governor here in WA was just re elected and had massive budget short falls/overspending on transportation projects that are years behind and massively over budget. Then they just passed a HUGE project equivalent to the "Big Dig" in Boston with no mention as to how to pay for it. I guess she may go for a state income tax on top of our sales tax.

Tax and Spend. Don't worry, we are here to take care of you.....scary.
 
Explain what would have happened to those subsidiary ins cos and their assets, had the Treas not pumped 150 Bil into AIG.

You're not suggesting that they would have been fine and continued operating, busines as usual, are you...? What would have happened to those assets, and the promises to those insured by AIG..?

They would have been spun off into a stand alone company.
 
They would have been spun off into a stand alone company.

Not exactly... that might have happened if one of the entities gets in trouble, but when the holdng co get whacked, all entities get whacked.

The assets of all of those companies would have been at risk, and the promises made by the insurance companies would have been restricted, or not easily fulfilled.
 
Back
Top