Yes, and it's deliberately set up that way -- in part, so we will spread our and the common risk, and not put "all our eggs in one basket" or something like it. But you knew that. I am actually amazed at the 50% after $100,000, and would never have expected that. Never heard it was part of the FDIC program to so divide up assets. But anyone who's ever been through school and learned about the depression and the subsequent establishment of the FDIC should never anticipate getting this, especially in the event of the real purpose of FDIC. Moreover, it's amazing that anyone would ever keep more than $100,000 in one bank. I could see losing track for a while (up to as long as between tax statements, which would be irresponsible enough) but beyond that.....

(I know, there's the argument that it should be more, considering the value of $100,000 when the amount was set. But let's all hope that what happened here doesn't catch hold, and we find ourselves debating it, or worse.)