So let's summarize this bail-in concept minus the politically correct words. The ZIRP is causing TBTF banks to seek out others to insure their increased risk caused by their need to move up the risk curve to stay in business. The government anti'd up the first tranche with TARP but is now out of money. The government can't raise taxes because they have hit the maximum practical tax rate. Nobody can pay down the debts since they would collapse the world financial system. So the government is now looking for anybody with money (taxpayers and non taxpayers) to insure the banks against their risks caused by their policies. Defacto therefore, we now all work for the banks welfare and not the government's welfare. Debt is slavery. Hmmmm ...... what could possibly go wrong with that idea? This balloon keeps growing bigger and bigger until a prick comes along!
The ZIRP - zero interest rate percentage? But the post from StarDust9182 brings a good point. We do work for the banks now.
Sorry I should have been more clear. I use ZIRP as zero interest rate policy. Policy meaning it is a choice. And therefore deflation and inflation are also a choice and as such difficult to know the winner at times. (Keynesians vs Kondratiev-ites.)
Good synopsis. How are brokerage accounts treated in a custodial bank insolvency? For example, I have an IB account which banks through JPM. If JPM were to go bankrupt, how would IB accounts be treated? Same as any other depositor, ya? What happens to IB customers that bought US Treasuries, or whatever. Say JPM goes under. They raid accounts and do a conversion, but what happens when those UST mature? Is the money forwarded to the owner? Or does JPM take a piece of it?
Most people have seen the sign at a bank - with a penny on it - it says, "no one has lost a single cent in an FDIC ensured account." Technically, that's not true. I've read accounts saying that sign is false and providing a few examples.