There are plenty of banks who are in trouble, and more will fail. But the depositors in those US banks still are covered by FDIC insurance up to the posted limit. There are other insurances for credit unions, too.

So if your deposits ae covered by FDIC, you're just fine.

If you were concerned about your money in banks, I assume you aren't familiar with how modern banks work in the US. Every major banking chain is FDIC insured. As long as you don't put more than $250,000 in your account, it is 100% insured and backed by the federal government. As long as you are with and FDIC insured bank, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The bank could go broke, get robbed, collapse, get blown up by terrorists etc and your money is still safe.

healthy? some are and some are not..safe? absolutely 100%...

Banks were safe last year and they are safe today.
People who wait in line to make a run on the bank are misinformed about banking.

My understanding is that the FDIC has no chance of covering even a small portion of the losses if we had a banking crisis.

I'm assuming the FDIC is only good for a very local banking issue and not a major crisis.

The primary issue is: Are there banks that are notoriously more astute about keeping their books straight and managed conservatively. I'd like the bank itself to be well managed rather than relying on a government rescue plan for my security.

I'm guessing can we all agree on that.

So you are betting on the collapse of the entire US system? Are you still looking for an excuse to buy gold?

The FDIC was created to reassure depositors that their money was safe. It has never failed to return depositors funds, even in the 1980's when the S&L debacle caused 2,700 financial institutions to fail. By contrast with those appalling numbers, so far 26 banks failed in 2008 and in 2009 there have been 133 failed banks. The 'watch list' currently contains 117 banks - again, very minor numbers compared to 30 yrs ago.

The largest bank failure ever, Washington Mutual in 2008, did not lose a single penny of depositor funds.

The FDIC will do what it did in the S&L crisis: increase premiums from active banks. Premiums were reduced in the 1990's and can easily be raised again without need for legislation.

Any additional immediate funds needed by the FDIC will come from the US Treasury. Since they can print all the money they need, and Congress would certainly never stand in the way of returning voters' money, there is absolutely no reason to think anyone's account funds are in danger of disappearing.

I was wondering if solution might be to "print all the money they need".

My understanding is that the FDIC is not terrifically well prepared for a real crisis. If money printing is the solution, I'm not sure how that would work (where did the old money go?). If it works, though, that's fine with me.

Gold is such a tiny portion of my investment that I am hardly looking for an excuse for it. Even then, I'm not certain that it is the best response to a real banking crisis. Maybe it is, I don't know.

I'm glad it (gold) is going down, though. I'd love an opportunity to buy it at a sweeter price point! Once in hand, it is very difficult to spend (which is a good thing)... so it is like a retirement account... but at the same time, I can liquidate it in an emergency (which is unlike a retirement account).

Historically, it has been a questionable investment... well, not from 1970 to 1980... or 2000 to 2009... but I get that it comes with it's own risks.

The answer I am hoping for, though, is this:
"Hey! Check out BB&T! There books are solid, they have tons of assets and are without questionable loan/investments!". [or some other bank.]

I guess there is no clear winner in the "my bank is more sound than your bank" contest.

"Failed Bank" is being used a little loosely right now. We haven't actually had a true bank failure in recent years ie the bank defaults on its debts and just closes the doors. What we have seen is the government stepping in when banks exceed certain debt ratios that make them unsustainable. The government acts before the bank actually collapses and just labels them a failed bank. Typically, they wait for the bank to close for the day, swarm the place with a team of specialists, work all night, and open for business the next day under government management. Sometimes a sale is arranged in advance eg wamu becomes JPmorgan chase overnight. Either way, there is usually little to no disruption for bank customers.

re: "printing money" - yes, the government can lose money bailing out banks, but it is a lot less than you might think. Banks have real assets - like loans. (A homeowner doesn't get to stop paying his mortgage even if the lender fails.) Those assets typically offset most of their debts. The people who really take a beating are the shareholders. The government acts quickly and doesn't necessarily shop around for the best deal. Take Wamu - the market (over) valued the company at hundreds of billions of dollars but the bank sold for 1.9 billion. Shareholders were completely wiped out and are currently suing to try to recover some of that.

Here's something for gold collectors to think about. I wasn't aware of this difference in the tax laws, and I'll bet others aren't, either:

Taxes can take the shine off gold
You may have made a bundle off gold this year, but the tax bite might be bigger than you thought.
By Jeff Schnepper, MSN Money, 12/14/2009

(Excerpt)."But all that gold doesn't necessarily glitter. When you sell gold, you have to pay a more expensive tax on the gain than you would have if you had just bought stocks.

Moreover, it doesn't matter if you bought gold coins or bars as investments or bought into in an exchange-traded fund that invests in gold. It's all gold to the Internal Revenue Service, and it's possible you will pay as much as 35% on your gain.

Sorry, my illiquid but weighty friends, gold is a "collectible." So are silver and platinum. And in the eyes of the IRS, which takes its cue from Congress, a collectible is not an investment like stocks or real estate.

And I'll bet you didn't know that.

Under federal tax law, "collectibles" include:
- Works of art.
- Rugs and antiques.
- Metals and gems.
- Stamps and coins.
- Alcoholic beverages (that means vintage wines and rare liquors).
- Any other tangible personal property specified by the secretary of the Treasury.

Normally, when you sell a capital asset you've owned for more than one year, your tax rate is capped at 15%.

But when you sell a collectible, tax law caps your maximum rate on long-term capital gains at 28%, not 15%. In other words, on a $100,000 gain (lucky you!), that means you don't pay $15,000 to Uncle Sam, you pay $28,000 -- an extra $13,000.

If you hold the asset for less than a year, it gets worse. Your gain becomes a short-term gain, and it's taxed at regular income tax rates. That means a rate of as much as 35%. On a $100,000 gain, that's $35,000 you pay to the government. Ouch!"

I have no short term investments.. and I get the feeling that those who own "collectables" often sell without anyone knowing it (untaxed). I see a number of people selling silver bullion and gold on Craigslist, and don't know if it gets reported.

I have no plans on selling, really. Again, it is a small portion of my money and if it is needed, it will mean that the financial world has changed... and that those anti-gold people will be feeling an "ouch!" that goes waaaaay beyond a 28%-35% tax concern.

Just today, on CNN's web "money" site, this is a blurb from a headline story:
"An average of 11 banks have failed every month this year. The spike in failures has raised concerns about the FDIC's deposit insurance fund, which has slipped into the red for the first time since 1991."

So the FDIC is in trouble and with only some puny banks folding?

This isn't about gold. It is about the question: how safe are the banks?... and if you say the answer is "yes they are safe. We have the FDIC!" I ask, "really? the FDIC is the reason they are safe?".

Now, they might be safe, but I wouldn't want to depend on the FDIC as the reason for the safety.

Let's just say that financial armageddon happens, a complete collapse of the economy and financial institutions..the dollar isn't worth the paper its printed on,riots break out over food etc...What do you think your gold coins/collectibles will get you?? My guess is almost nothing, as gold has no "real" value,can't eat it,drink it,warm your home with it...I'd rather have access to water and food products then gold..I realize gold has been used as a "stored value" for hundreds of years,but when its stripped down to its basic value,i think it doesn't make much sense..

Aw now, we don't have to leap to armageddon.

The most immediate "real" problem that is within the realm of possibility is a massive devaluing of our money.

No riots, no food wars... but money that loses serious value.

This is where metals begin to reveal their utility.

Granted, stocks and other investments could rise in lock step as well... maybe.

When/if the dollar has a massive devaluing, you don't think a segment of the population will be a tad upset? I'd bet good money that there would be many incidents of "uprisings"

Let's hope it doesn't come to this, and if the dollar continues to rise, as it has recently, gold may/will experience a rapid decline

Yea, I don't know if there would be a smattering of bad-behavior out there... but don't imagine marauding gangs.

If gold/metals go down, then maybe that's good news. It means our dollar is holding up! I'll be happy with that.

If it goes way, way up.. well... that's cool... but it will indicate that there are serious worries, too.

This little downturn in metals, though, is no big deal at all.. in the world of metals, it is expected. It does not come close to a worry. I'd only raise my eyebrows if/when we see $800 again. With such an upswing, huge waves are to be expected. 10% isn't even a consideration.

In fact, I'd love to see it go down to $500. At that price, I'll begin accumulating it with more enthusiasm... keeping it as a small segment of the savings, though.

Back to banks: So are banks such a mystery that it's hard to tell who could withstand an economic beating?

Not at all - you simply have to have access to analyst reports on individual banks. Most of them are publicly traded; most brokerages give their customers access to various analyst reports. It isn't something I normally research, as I don't invest in individual stocks. But almost anyone having a taxable trading account has at least limited access to this kind of information, which is pretty common, sector analysts being a dime a dozen at every single trading and research company.

Back to banks: So are banks such a mystery that it's hard to tell who could withstand an economic beating?

Banks are not built equally; each one has a unique portfolio of assets and liabilities. This means that you would have to define the term economic beating more definitively, which is impossible to do.

The Fed does indeed have a bank watch list with banks that they feel might be in jeopardy of failure; for obvious reasons, it does not publish this list. They have complex models that are run on each bank's balance sheet to test the strength and soundness under a variety of economic situations.

If you absolutely insist on seeing someone's opinion of bank's health, you can get some at the following website; but remember, this is only their opinion based on criteria they selected themselves and the banks safety might not mirror how they fall on another analysts report.

There are other sites that do this same thing, just do a Google for bank safety rankings. Be warned though, some of the reports are not free.

behaviorkelton-
For me there are only two scenarios to consider:
1) Everything will continue to bump along, but work out ok in the long run.
2) The FDIC will collapse, we will have chaos in America, and life as we know it will disappear.

If scenario 2 happens, what investments I have and whether I have money in Bank A or Bank B won't matter much.

Call me a naive optimist, but I'm going with scenario 1. And having made my choice, I'm not going to worry about things I have no control over. Now I'm going outside to get my garden ready for next year. That way I'll be good with either scenario....

CNBC is always a day late. If a commentator is touting anything, it's already too late because people who only get their financial information from such sources will run up the price of whatever he advises.

Is that the sole source of your financial information, CNBC?

For a solid financial education, I can recommend Bob Brinker's recommended reading list, and also that you listen to his radio show "Moneytalk" every weekend. I would not recommend the newsletter for you at this time, it's mainly his list of preferred no-load mutual funds.

No... I decided to take a nap.

I either put the TV to CNBC or C-SPAN as my sedative.

Upon waking, I lingered on CNBC. Bullishness is rampant... (it is still on in the background).

So, it isn't my sole source of financial information... but that isn't to say I'm a big student of financial information either.

I'm an admittedly simple financial guy. No debt of any kind and the best way I know to have money is to make it myself and save it rather than investing.

There are plenty of flaws with my personal money-life, but it is what it is. I have occasionally dabbled in investing, but it was just silliness on my part. My retirement, though, is invested in Vanguard stuff.

My comment about CNBC was a kind of warning based on what I have learned. When the magazine covers and TV shows are all touting the "Bull" market, it is time to exit the market.

I'm not sure if this is honestly factual, but I would bet that it is generally good advice. When times were at their worst... when all hope looks lost...the media talks of catastrophe... these have been the times to get into the market. But when it looks like happy days are here again, exit stage left!

Like everyone, I wish I would have entered when the DOW was in the 7000's. The psychology is too strong though, it is almost impossible to invest under such conditions. (for me)

(BTW, I apologize for going so far OT)
I enjoy CNBC - especially the Closing Bell and Fast Money shows - but you need to realize the people they bring on are almost all high-level execs, industry analysts or professional money mgrs. The latter trade in and out of ALL sectors of the market on a daily basis. It's not so much you take their advice with a grain of salt; the fact is that you must remember these people have a much different view of the market than the average person. Their viewpoint is concentrated on the 1 week to 6 month future, max. Like the markets they follow, their main focus is the next quarters earnings report.

CNBC does interesting CEO and analyst interviews, and some of their documentaries are extremely good. I could wish they would drop Erin Burnett, whom I think is one of the dumbest and least qualified staffers in existence Sharon Epperson is far more intelligent and knowledgable; plus it would be great to see an AfrAm woman anchor a business show.

Their 'bullishness' is focused on trading in and out of sectors; e.g., sector rotation. If you watched on a regular basis you would get a better sense of how different portfolio mgrs are viewing the markets. Some are gold bulls (and even those, such as Dennis Gartner and Joe Terranova, trade in and out of commodities regularly). Most agree that emerging and frontier markets will outpace the US and Europe economies, and that normalization of money flows due to high global liquidity is an accepted fact hence the bullishness for specific sectors and/or stocks. Again, this is all short timeframe stuff.

Theyre also the only network that gives time (albeit in quick highlights) to explain the global currency and commodities exchanges on a daily basis.

I personally loathe Jim Cramer and consider him an obnoxious TV personality, although he seems to appeal to many. Id watch Larry Kudlow before Id suffer through Cramer Kudlows a dyed-in-the-wool conservative but very intelligent, very knowledgable. Kudlow oversees some extremely spirited debates on his show with a little more political flavor added than the other CNBC shows allow.

As for pushing stocks, the reason is as several guests commented throughout today's shows, huge inflows of money are going into bond funds. But when inflation picks up, which we're already beginning to see in emerging markets and some commodities, bond funds are exactly what you should avoid, at that point in time. Not now, but looking forward.

The biggest difference between investing pros and amateurs is that pros are always thinking ahead, planning their exit strategies when circumstances change - because they know that circumstances ALWAYS change. Amateurs don't pay attention until the local 10p news starts screaming sensationalist 30-second spots.

For instance, right now I do happen to be one of those people heavily in bond funds. But I've been holding this short-term bond position for several months now. Why? Because I decided not to be greedy and took my 46% profit for the year, back in early October. The market's gone a bit higher but not by much, and the bond fund's in double digits for ROI so I've nothing to complain about. I will go back into equities when the time is right, because it actually makes me nervous to hold nothing but cash and bonds; equities are the only way to survive inflation's inevitable long-term bite.

Many good investors are contrarians. Warren Buffett is one of them. In early 2009 the media was running stories criticizing Buffett for 'losing his touch' after a bad 2008. Recently, the WSJournal wrote that 2009 may go down as one of the most brilliant investing years in Buffett's long career.