Do you have any objection for the poor banks to take money from your account so they don't go under, just because they took unnecessary risks with your money and started wars? C'mon, dont be so selfish ! Think about the starving Banker kids ...

Quote from the article

Yesterday, the Bank for International Settlements announced that its member jurisdictions have made significant progress in implementing the final elements of Basel III. Basel III includes wide acceptance of bail-in as a way of rescuing failing banks. Unlike a bailout, which involves external assistance (often from taxpayers), a bail-in restructures the bank’s liabilities internally which includes taking the money you have on deposit and in savings accounts, as these form part of the bank’s liabilities, and converting them from cash you can use into something else, e.g. shares in the bank. In other words, it is a bailout by the taxpayers but without the government as the middleman. As a depositor or saver, the bail-in conditions will not be negotiated with you.>

Short version: if you have more than $250,000 (FDIC limit), they take all of the money over that amount and you never see it again. If you are lucky, maybe you get some bank stock, but maybe not.

Until the people hold their oppressors accountable, the tyranny will continue.

Remember Greece where BOC denied customers the money in their accounts and they couldn't even buy food?

Is this the same as moving the decimal in our currency? Or is this more avoidable by not banking all in one place or keeping things under that limit and spreading things out? I remember Greece years ago but it’s a bit foggy…

Lloyd's of London has a reputation for insuring anything. What isn't known is how they do it.

If you become one of Lloyd's backers, you're essentially pledging your entire net worth, right down to your 'cufflinks'. The risk Lloyd's accepts isn't shared across by everyone. You are assigned to a specific contract(s). Some contracts are risker than others. You have no say in where you are assigned.

Talk about your conflicts of interest: the lowest-risk policies were inevitably written for friends, and those less favored often bought the higher-risk policies. This was the Lloyd’s way for a long time.

goldfinger

Banks used to be privately held. And just like Lloyd's, the bank's owner was personally liable for the success, or failure, of the bank. Then, in 1956, the Bank Holding Company Act was passed. Now bank owners weren't liable for failing. Taxpayers were. If a bank was 'too big to fail', Uncle Sam stepped in and saved them. At taxpayer expense.

Bank Holding Company Act of 1956

The 2008 recession shook up the politicians. So, in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act passed. It included provisions for bank 'bail-ins'. Now, if a bank fails, Uncle Sam's not stepping in. YOU ARE. Failing banks are now 'allowed' to take your deposit money to keep the bank floating.

Did you notice who is not on the hook? That's right - the 'owners' of the bank. The idiots that cause a mess necessitating a 'bail-in' are free and clear of the fallout.

protecting yourself from a bank bail-in

Fucking politicians ...

They are even calling the transition, “endgame”.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20230727a.htm

The changes would implement the final components of the Basel III agreement, also known as the Basel III endgame.

u/bubble_bursts

Wait till my conspiracy theory democrar dumbass brother in law loses his money to it. Bet that will wake his pompous ass up.

a bail-in restructures the bank’s liabilities internally which includes taking the money you have on deposit and in savings accounts, as these form part of the bank’s liabilities, and converting them from cash you can use into something else, e.g. shares in the bank

Let me guess: We get Ordinary Shares and the bankers get Preferred Shares so when it comes to the final money distribution … we effectively get nothing.

Australia has this. Think i posted about it a cpl months back (edit: made a liar out of myself, i should have posted). Makes me sick

My brothers response "it is what it is" it doesnt effect him yet and seems to not want to see when it will

Bail in and Bail outs! The peoples taxes/money grabs should not help prop up failing banks. If taxpayer money saves a bank, then that bank should become owned by the people. A true "federal bank of America" etc no longer a private entity.

For the most part once you deposit money in a bank account the funds can be accessed and loaned out infinitum by the bank. Technically, the funds aren't really yours anymore. Think about it. If the bank fails you don't get your money back. Why? Because the bank spent it as if it was theirs that's why.

Psst...Hey fren...

It's ALL a "GIGANTIC SCAM"...

Listen to this

Also...FDIC insurance has something like 10 years to pay you back AND it's done in installments... you're not getting a lump sum straight away.

Funny how everyone gets cocky about FDIC, "I'm not worried... it's FDIC insured" Oh yeah? Then FDIC drags their cocky all over your face and their feet, up to 10 years.

Doesn't matter anyway... most of us are broke or already got out of FRNs when the Bidet coup began...

Wonder what would happen if ppl stopped paying taxes before/after/at the same time as not paying debts back to banks... cant fund the bail outs if no tax money and if take money out of banks they cant bail in as well as topple faster.