Well, if you have $600 million in deposits at a single bank, it would not be fully insured by the FDIC. It doesn't just have a limit of $250,000 per account holder, it's also limited by per ownership category, so, in order to ensure that all of your funds are fully insured, people like Oprah spread your money across multiple accounts or multiple banks.
For example, you could create multiple accounts in your name, with each account holding no more than $250,000. Alternatively, you could open accounts in different ownership categories, such as joint accounts with different co-owners, trust accounts, or retirement accounts, as each category is insured separately up to $250,000.
Simply having multiple accounts at the same bank does not necessarily mean that all of your funds are insured. If all of your accounts have the same ownership category and collectively exceed the FDIC insurance limit, then you may still be at risk of losing some of your deposits in the event that the bank fails. That's how rich people lose money when banks fail.
Overall, it's recommended to consult with a financial advisor to determine the best strategy for protecting your funds and ensuring that they are fully insured by the FDIC.
You describe a solution to a problem that most (if not all) of the people reading this thread do not have. It's not even clear if having too much money is actually a good thing, given how so many people that do, seem to be evil. Cause and effect is difficult to prove, but there is a definite correlation.
I would suspect that the truly wealthy don't keep that much money in bank accounts. Real assets are less likely to evaporate in this way.
Why have that much in one bank? Makes zero sense.
Well, if you have $600 million in deposits at a single bank, it would not be fully insured by the FDIC. It doesn't just have a limit of $250,000 per account holder, it's also limited by per ownership category, so, in order to ensure that all of your funds are fully insured, people like Oprah spread your money across multiple accounts or multiple banks.
For example, you could create multiple accounts in your name, with each account holding no more than $250,000. Alternatively, you could open accounts in different ownership categories, such as joint accounts with different co-owners, trust accounts, or retirement accounts, as each category is insured separately up to $250,000.
Simply having multiple accounts at the same bank does not necessarily mean that all of your funds are insured. If all of your accounts have the same ownership category and collectively exceed the FDIC insurance limit, then you may still be at risk of losing some of your deposits in the event that the bank fails. That's how rich people lose money when banks fail.
Overall, it's recommended to consult with a financial advisor to determine the best strategy for protecting your funds and ensuring that they are fully insured by the FDIC.
You describe a solution to a problem that most (if not all) of the people reading this thread do not have. It's not even clear if having too much money is actually a good thing, given how so many people that do, seem to be evil. Cause and effect is difficult to prove, but there is a definite correlation.
I would suspect that the truly wealthy don't keep that much money in bank accounts. Real assets are less likely to evaporate in this way.