Like Mountain Trader, I have had challenges with Cap One CSRs and their communication skills. That being said, once I got through to the Fraud department before each trip, I've only had them decline two charges, both when I had to overnight in Paris (that's three trips to countires that include Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Austria, Germany, Republic of Ireland, England, and two overnights in Paris). The Fraud department has always given me a direct number to call if I had a problem, I just didn't bother to use it since they were single charges on my way home.

For a current account, I have opened a Fidelity cash account.

http://personal.fidelity.com/global/...uestion=mycash

While it is a sweep account for investments, it's FDIC insured, and they rebate all "foreign" ATM fees in the US. Because overseas withdrawls are processed by VISA, there's a 1% fee for them.

I went with them becasue there is also an office in my town. I haven't completed the transition, so still have funds at Netbank, but am transitioning bill pay and direct deposit this week.

Wow. Bummer for netbank customers.

Hypothetical question to the experts:

Savings - 100k
Checking 10k
Owe on Credit Card - 10k

Your total depoists are 110k but only 100k are insured -- so you'd potentially lose the extra 10k. Would they credit that to your credit card payment (in this case, if you normally pay your bills on the 1st of the month, and would have paid off the 10k balance in full from checking, but the bank went under on the 28th... you'd be hosed). How would this work?

For those of you who are thinking about ING accounts, I have used them for years and have nothing but good things to say about them. Enjoy!

Mike

No, depositors do not have a "right of offset".

I opened a NetBank account a few years ago for the UA miles. The interest was never competitive so I closed it a year ago and now have an ING Orange account which pays very nicely. The downside is that the ATM card is essentially worthless - it won't even work at ING banks in Europe.

1. Deposits are always a liability for a bank. It's money the bank owes to someone (the depositor). So my original point was to say that the article is essentially correct when it described NTBK's balance sheet as having xxx in deposits and xxx in assets. The original poster didn't understand this.

2. I know all about the Fed. It is not a private bank. The Federal Reserve is a system and various components have differing legal states. The board of governors is actually a government agency. But yes, the Federal Reserve Banks are ultimately privately owned by the commercial banks in their respective regions, although these shareholders have limited abilities to control these stakes.

3. You are technically correct on OTS/FDIC but you realize they usually act in unison. And if FDIC refused to insure a bank's deposits going forward, this would effectively shutter any bank.

Does this mean that the ING ATM card won't work in Europe, not just that there's a 3% conversion charge and you should tell them you'll be traveling? Any problem with their listed ATMs in the U.S.? I see that they tend to be in convenience stores and the like; the few times I've tried those, it's been hard to make withdrawals in the $300 range as I like.

Before I learned about the ING $50 offer, after looking over the FT wiki I was ready to move my NetBank funds to Bank of Internet, where I've just become eligible for Senior Checking. May I hope that the similarity of their name and nature to NetBank's isn't too much of a concern? For now I think I'll start with ING and may move funds to B of I when a trip to Europe gets closer.

I'm not a depositor at NetBank, but I'm curious about what the prospects of recovery are for those with accounts exceeding the FDIC-insured amounts. Does anyone have a sense for that?

From the FDIC:

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/NetBank.html

In accordance with Federal law, allowed claims will be paid, after administrative expenses, in the following order of priority:

1. Depositors
2. General Unsecured Creditors
3. Subordinated Debt
4. Stockholders

...

Due to the projected sale of assets of the former bank, the FDIC is in the position to provide each uninsured depositor with an dividend equal to 50% of your uninsured amount. These funds will be deposited directly into your account net of your uninsured portion.

My checking and MM accounts are back on line, and bill pay is working. I had nothing uninsured.

Yikes. It looks like a substantial loss of principal is in the cards for the uninsured portion of deposits.

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.)

FWIW, the FDIC-insured deposit limit for IRA accounts was raised to $250,000 (instead of $100,000) recently (just this year, I believe).

However, I don't know if NetBank offered IRA deposit accounts. Not all banks do -- for example, ING Direct does not.

Thanks. Learned more than a couple of things on FT, today. Everytime I get up on a high horse... Looks like psyflyer, above, says it can be even higher. Didn't have my ear to the rail.

I thought that the FDIC $100,000 limit was the total insured amount not the amount per bank. ie: if you put $100,000 in 10 different banks and they all went belly up you would only be insured for a total of $100,000.

Nope, Rc408. It's $100K per bank. Also, I don't know if it's still true, but I remember an old brochure from the late 1970s (when the limit was $20K, then $40K) which explained that a joint account was counted as a separate person. So John Doe, his wife Jane Doe, and Mr. & Mrs. John Doe get 3 helpings of FDIC insurance @$100K at one bank if this is still true.