Business & Investing
Sponsored by

Best Bank to hold funds over $100k

4,386 Views | 33 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by 91AggieLawyer
voorheesdn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Will be needing to set up a business account which will carry a constant balance over $100k. Any advice on the best options?

Hoping for something that will carry some interest or have other benefits if we move all of our accounts there. Will be a joint account with me and my brother who lives in Alaska.
IrishTxAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Local credit union Money Market account?
Football&Finance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bankrate.com
RightWingConspirator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We have considerably more than that parked at Goldman Sachs bank. So far we've had no complaints.
jh0400
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RightWingConspirator said:

We have considerably more than that parked at Goldman Sachs bank. So far we've had no complaints.


#humblebrag
Football&Finance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not really, anyone can open an account with GS now. https://www.gsbank.com/en.html
kag00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CIT Bank pays just under 1% APY. I have my reserve account there. It's really only good if you are looking to park it and access infrequently.

Most online banks will offer fairly good rates compared to traditional brick and mortar banks.
RightWingConspirator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yup, we started out with GE capital bank and it was sold to Goldman Sachs.
Bitter Old Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RightWingConspirator said:

We have considerably more than that
I think this was the humblebrag...
Bitter Old Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I couple of thoughts for you, as I'm not sure what your other criteria are...

- Any bank is "safe" enough for $100k, because your deposits are insured up to $250k..

- $100k isn't going to move the needle at any large national banks. Regional and Local banks would be more interested in you for that.

- If you are wanting a bank that has locations in both states, then I think your only choice will be Wells Fargo. Who wont care much about you for $100k.

- Bank interest is a waste of time. You don't earn anything meaningful.

- You might be able to open a small business account with some banks and get some free services, but banks usually charge fees to businesses for service.
WoMD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bitter Old Man said:

I couple of thoughts for you, as I'm not sure what your other criteria are...

- Any bank is "safe" enough for $100k, because your deposits are insured up to $250k..

- $100k isn't going to move the needle at any large national banks. Regional and Local banks would be more interested in you for that.

- If you are wanting a bank that has locations in both states, then I think your only choice will be Wells Fargo. Who wont care much about you for $100k.

- Bank interest is a waste of time. You don't earn anything meaningful.

- You might be able to open a small business account with some banks and get some free services, but banks usually charge fees to businesses for service.

I have Wells Fargo for my business account. No fees, but they did try adding them a couple times my first couple years (related to maxing cash deposits). A couple visits to the local branch here and there, and no fees since.

For my purposes Wells Fargo was the only real option unfortunately. The local banks all had a stupid number of fees and limitations.
Ducks4brkfast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where are you? If you're in the Houston area I could introduce you to our business banker at Amegy. Good bank.
cheeky
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For consistent balance over $1M there are substantially better options than anything mentioned
Leeman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stagecoach said:

For consistent balance over $1M there are substantially better options than anything mentioned
I'm all ears....
26.2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have over a million in cash. How could I deposit that somewhere without too many people asking questions?
SECond2noneAgs
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
26.2 said:

I have over a million in cash. How could I deposit that somewhere without too many people asking questions?

Buy a car wash
cheeky
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
26.2 said:

I have over a million in cash. How could I deposit that somewhere without too many people asking questions?
Read the Patriot Act. You can not.
OldArmy91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bitter Old Man said:



- Any bank is "safe" enough for $100k, because your deposits are insured up to $250k..


That's what Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank want all the sheepel to believe.

Your 'deposit' is NOT your money, it is a loan to the bank according to Dodd-Frank. The 'loan' is only insured up to $250K IF the Fed has enough insurance reserves to cover the total amount of deposits. They don't. In other words, if you deposit in a smaller bank which fails before the 'too big to fail banks fail, then you're okay. If not, don't expect to see a significant portion or any of your deposit again.
Bitter Old Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OldArmy91 said:

Bitter Old Man said:



- Any bank is "safe" enough for $100k, because your deposits are insured up to $250k..


That's what Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank want all the sheepel to believe.

Your 'deposit' is NOT your money, it is a loan to the bank according to Dodd-Frank. The 'loan' is only insured up to $250K IF the Fed has enough insurance reserves to cover the total amount of deposits. They don't. In other words, if you deposit in a smaller bank which fails before the 'too big to fail banks fail, then you're okay. If not, don't expect to see a significant portion or any of your deposit again.
This is wrong on so many levels. I'm a banker, so I'm somewhat aware of the subject. Where to start....

1) The Fed doesn't insure deposits, the FDIC does and they are not related to the Federal Reserve. FDIC is backed by the US Treasury, who prints the money.

2) Dodd and Frank are idiots of the highest degree, but they aren't the ones you should be mad at. Bill Clinton (D) and Phil Gramm (R) are the two that led BOTH parties (heavily influenced by the large banks) to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Be mad at them. Dodd/Frank just made everything more complicated for consumers to get a loan and for small banks to survive.

3) If the TBTF banks fail, and the FDIC can't cover their obligations (i.e. the US Treasury can't cover it), then you will have a total systemic meltdown. So, while its true that you wont get your deposit back, even if you did it's really a moot point, because your dollar won't be worth anything anyways. Your best investment would be lead and gunpowder at that point.

4) Most small bank failures are not handled with deposit insurance, they are just absorbed by another bank who gets a guarantee on those assets from the FDIC.
Football&Finance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
your explanation sounds right, but you didn't use any bold or words like "sheeple", so how can I be sure?
OldArmy91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bitter Old Man said:

OldArmy91 said:

Bitter Old Man said:



- Any bank is "safe" enough for $100k, because your deposits are insured up to $250k..


That's what Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank want all the sheepel to believe.

Your 'deposit' is NOT your money, it is a loan to the bank according to Dodd-Frank. The 'loan' is only insured up to $250K IF the Fed has enough insurance reserves to cover the total amount of deposits. They don't. In other words, if you deposit in a smaller bank which fails before the 'too big to fail banks fail, then you're okay. If not, don't expect to see a significant portion or any of your deposit again.
This is wrong on so many levels. I'm a banker, so I'm somewhat aware of the subject. Where to start....

1) The Fed doesn't insure deposits, the FDIC does and they are not related to the Federal Reserve. FDIC is backed by the US Treasury, who prints the money.

2) Dodd and Frank are idiots of the highest degree, but they aren't the ones you should be mad at. Bill Clinton (D) and Phil Gramm (R) are the two that led BOTH parties (heavily influenced by the large banks) to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Be mad at them. Dodd/Frank just made everything more complicated for consumers to get a loan and for small banks to survive.

3) If the TBTF banks fail, and the FDIC can't cover their obligations (i.e. the US Treasury can't cover it), then you will have a total systemic meltdown. So, while its true that you wont get your deposit back, even if you did it's really a moot point, because your dollar won't be worth anything anyways. Your best investment would be lead and gunpowder at that point.

4) Most small bank failures are not handled with deposit insurance, they are just absorbed by another bank who gets a guarantee on those assets from the FDIC.
Oh excuse me for referencing 'Fed' without making it obvious. FEDeral Deposit Insurance Corporation.

If you're trying to say that the FDIC has an endless monetary supply, then you're lying. The FDIC is NOT the US Treasury. Dodd-Frank prevents such a bailout and you should know that.

Furthermore, you dodged the issue of deposit ownership.

I'm not surprised that a banker would respond like you have.

Dodd-Frank is structured so that if banks fail, there's a 'bail in' instead of a bail out. Taxpayers aren't on the hook, but the depositors are. The banks seize your deposits to pay creditors and if you're lucky, you'll get paper equity in the reorganized bank.

Football&Finance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So the FDIC is "federal" enough for you to ignorantly call it "The Fed" and pretend like you meant to, but not federal enough to be backed by the US Treasury/full faith of US Gvt??. The FDIC is the ultimate TBTF. As the previous poster said, if the FDIC can't get injections from UST, then the $USD you're trying to recover as a depositor (yes, an unsecured creditor to a bank) prob won't be worth much other than whatever the going rate for toilet paper in a global meltdown is.
OldArmy91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Football&Finance said:

So the FDIC is "federal" enough for you to ignorantly call it "The Fed" and pretend like you meant to, but not federal enough to be backed by the US Treasury/full faith of US Gvt??. The FDIC is the ultimate TBTF. As the previous poster said, if the FDIC can't get injections from UST, then the $USD you're trying to recover as a depositor (yes, an unsecured creditor to a bank) prob won't be worth much other than whatever the going rate for toilet paper in a global meltdown is.
Ask and you shall receive:

No bail out statute

Failed banks will now be treated akin to chapter 11 bankruptcies.

A depositor is an unsecured creditor.

Now you can ignorantly keep making deposits thinking there's no way you could lose them.

Football&Finance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bruh. the whole point of that section of the code is about enabling and codifying the orderly liquidation of an individual covered financial company. there would be nothing orderly about allowing the FDIC to fail. I can't anymore, I would say go back to zero hedge, but I feel like that's insulting ZH.
Bitter Old Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OldArmy91 said:

Football&Finance said:

So the FDIC is "federal" enough for you to ignorantly call it "The Fed" and pretend like you meant to, but not federal enough to be backed by the US Treasury/full faith of US Gvt??. The FDIC is the ultimate TBTF. As the previous poster said, if the FDIC can't get injections from UST, then the $USD you're trying to recover as a depositor (yes, an unsecured creditor to a bank) prob won't be worth much other than whatever the going rate for toilet paper in a global meltdown is.


A depositor is an unsecured creditor.

Now you can ignorantly keep making deposits thinking there's no way you could lose them.


This has literally been the case for 1000's of years. The banking business has always been about taking in deposits and investing them for a return. Only since the creation of the FDIC have people stopped understanding that and started thinking of banks as a charitable organization that provides free money babysitting. Banking is a business, we are here to make money. We don't make money by losing it all. All the regulations in the world wont stop bad eggs from doing bad egg things. All they do is make it harder for good eggs to operate.

But, definitely keep painting an entire industry with broad strokes, that will always work out well for you.

OldArmy91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Football&Finance said:

bruh. the whole point of that section of the code is about enabling and codifying the orderly liquidation of an individual covered financial company. there would be nothing orderly about allowing the FDIC to fail. I can't anymore, I would say go back to zero hedge, but I feel like that's insulting ZH.
bruh, bro, dude, wtf ever. The FDIC is only as good as the amount of reserves they have to cover deposits.

The end.

The FDIC doesn't fail. It just runs out of money.

There will be no bail outs the next time around.

People should know this. I have a fair amount of cash spread across more than one bank. I damn sure don't have it in a Bank of America type bank.

You're more than welcome to figure it out once you're left holding an empty hand. Certainly the people who are advocates for a 'cash-less' society ought to be the first. It's just fitting.

OldArmy91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bitter Old Man said:

OldArmy91 said:

Football&Finance said:

So the FDIC is "federal" enough for you to ignorantly call it "The Fed" and pretend like you meant to, but not federal enough to be backed by the US Treasury/full faith of US Gvt??. The FDIC is the ultimate TBTF. As the previous poster said, if the FDIC can't get injections from UST, then the $USD you're trying to recover as a depositor (yes, an unsecured creditor to a bank) prob won't be worth much other than whatever the going rate for toilet paper in a global meltdown is.


A depositor is an unsecured creditor.

Now you can ignorantly keep making deposits thinking there's no way you could lose them.


This has literally been the case for 1000's of years. The banking business has always been about taking in deposits and investing them for a return. Only since the creation of the FDIC have people stopped understanding that and started thinking of banks as a charitable organization that provides free money babysitting. Banking is a business, we are here to make money. We don't make money by losing it all. All the regulations in the world wont stop bad eggs from doing bad egg things. All they do is make it harder for good eggs to operate.

But, definitely keep painting an entire industry with broad strokes, that will always work out well for you.


Except that banks used to issue loans to make a return. Now they make their money on fees and play in the stock market with someone else's money.
Football&Finance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No, just no. Banks make more on Interest Income now as a % of Total Income than they did before. Dodd-Frank actually caused NII (Non-Interest Income) to fall at US banks (see graph below, note the spike in NII % at the passage of glass steagall, and the fall pos-GFC w/Dodd-Frank).



Banking isn't risky because of prop trading (RIP) or derivative desks, those are incremental risks. Banking is risky because you're borrowing from depositors on a daily/monthly basis and lending it out for 5-10yrs (or 30yrs for mortgages!). That maturity transformation is, basically, a magic trick and requires the confidence of all involved and the assurance of the FDIC to function, regardless of whether your money is with your local community bank or with a "TBTF" like JPM.

Which, again, is why I say that even if FDIC reserves were to be depleted due to multiple massive failures, they would be refilled by the UST, just as the reserves were refilled at FNMA and FHMLC (and these weren't even explicitly government agencies! yet still critical to functioning of the system). The absolute safety of FDIC covered bank deposits is a keystone to the functioning of the financial system, which is why your <$250,000 in an FDIC covered account is effectively backed by full faith & credit of US Gvt.
Bitter Old Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:



The FDIC doesn't fail. It just runs out of money.

There will be no bail outs the next time around.

People should know this. I have a fair amount of cash spread across more than one bank. I damn sure don't have it in a Bank of America type bank.

You're more than welcome to figure it out once you're left holding an empty hand. Certainly the people who are advocates for a 'cash-less' society ought to be the first. It's just fitting.



Sir, you are completely missing the point. If the FDIC runs out of money, which in a systemic failure it would, and the UST doesn't support it, then the entire world financial system collapses from the resulting chain reaction. If the UST allows that to happen, then the US Dollar will have lost all its value, including the circulating currency or "cash." Those dollar bills you have buried in coffee cans or stuck in a safe will be worthless because no one will accept them for payment anymore, as we will become a society where ammunition, food, and clothes are the most valuable things you can own and the best currency to own. Gold will be useless, deeded interest in land will be useless, securities will be useless. It would be a true apocalypse.

The best way to avoid this is to have a diversified banking system, made up of smaller institutions that cannot pose a systemic risk by themselves. All Dodd-Frank did is create more regulations that make it harder for small banks to comply and puts them out of business as they merge to scale up.
OldArmy91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bitter Old Man said:

Quote:



The FDIC doesn't fail. It just runs out of money.

There will be no bail outs the next time around.

People should know this. I have a fair amount of cash spread across more than one bank. I damn sure don't have it in a Bank of America type bank.

You're more than welcome to figure it out once you're left holding an empty hand. Certainly the people who are advocates for a 'cash-less' society ought to be the first. It's just fitting.



Sir, you are completely missing the point. If the FDIC runs out of money, which in a systemic failure it would, and the UST doesn't support it, then the entire world financial system collapses from the resulting chain reaction. If the UST allows that to happen, then the US Dollar will have lost all its value, including the circulating currency or "cash." Those dollar bills you have buried in coffee cans or stuck in a safe will be worthless because no one will accept them for payment anymore, as we will become a society where ammunition, food, and clothes are the most valuable things you can own and the best currency to own. Gold will be useless, deeded interest in land will be useless, securities will be useless. It would be a true apocalypse.

The best way to avoid this is to have a diversified banking system, made up of smaller institutions that cannot pose a systemic risk by themselves. All Dodd-Frank did is create more regulations that make it harder for small banks to comply and puts them out of business as they merge to scale up.
Missing the point? Slightly not! Banks are no longer an asset from a consumer perspective. They are a liability. If you're a depositor but the banks only loan money to churches or people who don't need to borrow money, then WTF good is a bank?

Total collapse? Well according to Dodd-Frank, and you're a banker with complete knowledge (as you say), then you know the banks must have a liquidation plan in place that prevents such an apocalypse. The dreaded "bail in".

Are you saying endless QE didn't reduce the value of the dollar?

The question posed by the OP was just answered by you. Put it in a smaller bank or community type regional bank. TBTF banks will fail and your deposits won't be insured.

I expect a total crash. It really needs to happen to get out of this fake economy that was created on account of the TBTF banking F-ups from the last time around.


Football&Finance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Are you saying endless QE didn't reduce the value of the dollar?
Are you logged in from an alternate timeline? That would explain so much of what you're typing, that or you're a masterful troll.



I swear this is my last response, I can't help myself. It's easier for me to believe that you're a masterful troll than to conceptualize that you truly believe the counterfactual things you keep typing.
The Wonderer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OldArmy91 said:

Bitter Old Man said:

OldArmy91 said:

Bitter Old Man said:



- Any bank is "safe" enough for $100k, because your deposits are insured up to $250k..


That's what Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank want all the sheepel to believe.

Your 'deposit' is NOT your money, it is a loan to the bank according to Dodd-Frank. The 'loan' is only insured up to $250K IF the Fed has enough insurance reserves to cover the total amount of deposits. They don't. In other words, if you deposit in a smaller bank which fails before the 'too big to fail banks fail, then you're okay. If not, don't expect to see a significant portion or any of your deposit again.
This is wrong on so many levels. I'm a banker, so I'm somewhat aware of the subject. Where to start....

1) The Fed doesn't insure deposits, the FDIC does and they are not related to the Federal Reserve. FDIC is backed by the US Treasury, who prints the money.

2) Dodd and Frank are idiots of the highest degree, but they aren't the ones you should be mad at. Bill Clinton (D) and Phil Gramm (R) are the two that led BOTH parties (heavily influenced by the large banks) to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Be mad at them. Dodd/Frank just made everything more complicated for consumers to get a loan and for small banks to survive.

3) If the TBTF banks fail, and the FDIC can't cover their obligations (i.e. the US Treasury can't cover it), then you will have a total systemic meltdown. So, while its true that you wont get your deposit back, even if you did it's really a moot point, because your dollar won't be worth anything anyways. Your best investment would be lead and gunpowder at that point.

4) Most small bank failures are not handled with deposit insurance, they are just absorbed by another bank who gets a guarantee on those assets from the FDIC.
Oh excuse me for referencing 'Fed' without making it obvious. FEDeral Deposit Insurance Corporation.

If you're trying to say that the FDIC has an endless monetary supply, then you're lying. The FDIC is NOT the US Treasury. Dodd-Frank prevents such a bailout and you should know that.

Furthermore, you dodged the issue of deposit ownership.

I'm not surprised that a banker would respond like you have.

Dodd-Frank is structured so that if banks fail, there's a 'bail in' instead of a bail out. Taxpayers aren't on the hook, but the depositors are. The banks seize your deposits to pay creditors and if you're lucky, you'll get paper equity in the reorganized bank.


Fed = Federal Reserve
OldArmy91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Go deposit your insured funds and don't worry about the likes of me nor the law. Pay no attention. Look the other way. Everything is just dandy. Well hell that sounds like 2007 all over again.

When your **** gets confiscated, good luck.
Bitter Old Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm going with Troll. I'm out.
91AggieLawyer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Bill Clinton (D) and Phil Gramm (R) are the two that led BOTH parties (heavily influenced by the large banks) to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Be mad at them.

Except that there's nothing to be mad at them about. The repeal efforts had been in the works for 2 decades and the actual repeal, which passed largely across party lines, wasn't a problem. It was the Senate Republicans agreeing to go along with an effort to invigorate the Community Reinvestment Act that directly led to the mortgage bubble and crisis a decade or so later.

Parking cash has been a problem for only a few years. Prior to 2012, you earned SOME interest/return on cash.

To answer the OP, go to the best small bank you can find. If you're in the metroplex, I recommend Texas Security Bank. There are 2 or 3 others as well.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.