If you are advising customers to put their sons and daughters on their account in order to get extra coverage, then you DO need 2 hours worth of training. Thinking like you just provided is exactly why this proposal was made.

https://www.fdic.gov/edie/fdic_info.html

What are the basic FDIC coverage limits?*

Single Accounts (owned by one person): $250,000 per owner

Joint Accounts (two or more persons): $250,000 per co-owner

IRAs and other certain retirement accounts: $250,000 per owner

Revocable trust accounts: Each owner is insured up to $250,000 for the interests of each beneficiary, subject to specific limitations and requirements

Is it possible to have more than $250,000 at one insured bank and still be fully covered?

You may qualify for more than $250,000 in coverage at one insured bank or savings association if you own deposit accounts in different ownership categories. The most common account ownership categories for individual and family deposits are single accounts, joint accounts, revocable trust accounts and certain retirement accounts.

Bob if you worked in a branch and your customer just lost 250,000. and is looking to put the blame on someone other than himself and you read word for word.

As a banker we can just put the info out there it is the customers responsibilty to make the correct choices for themselfs.

You as a banker do not know all the personal information about the customer. He may not even know about other family members he may choose to place on the account.

Which is why you engage the customer in conversation to learn about them, educate them, and guide them to making an educated decision.

Which is what others have been saying thourgh out the thread.

I'm sure all of us have at one time or another tried to help a customer a little too much only to have it all blow-up in our faces. Bankers should know their product and sell it accordingly. Remember the old saying, "The Customer is King." Sell him what he wants and his needs will be taken care of. Anything else is pure speculation on our part.

Just did not think that the FDIC needed to make it into a rule when it should be part of our banking "services." Just my $.02 It also helps if the FDIC keeps the brochures current.

Apparently, one motivation for FDIC to introduce said proposed rulemaking is that, "The FDIC receives tens of thousands of telephone calls, emails, and correspondence annually from depositors and employees of insured depository institutions (IDIs) seeking information and advice about FDIC deposit insurance coverage. These inquiries reveal that many depositors are unsure whether their deposits are covered in full by FDIC insurance, and that IDI employees often are unfamiliar with the limits that apply to deposit insurance coverage. In addition, the FDIC regularly receives complaints from IDI customers asserting that their IDI was unable to answer their deposit insurance questions or, in some cases, may have provided inaccurate deposit insurance guidance."

I can speak from direct branch experience, one can inform the same customer 10 times and they will still walk away with an inaccurate perception despite one's most academic approach!

Its never ok for an INI to be late on compliance, but I just love this statement posted on FDIC:

"Due to the recent regulatory changes resulting from the passage of financial reform legislation, the FDIC is in the process of updating its deposit insurance coverage materials. Materials will be made available as soon as possible."

Can I use that excuse too!?

Was this proposal finalized?

No. I can only imagine that cooler heads at the FDIC have prevailed, and that this proposal has quietly been euthanized. Problem is, there's not likely to be an official statement from the FDIC to that effect.

It was at best an interesting idea. At worst, it was so poorly structured as to be doomed from the outset, IMHO.

I attended the session held on Oct. 14th. That was nearly the biggest waste of 2 hours I could imagine. It was a pre-recorded and the guy's voice is so monotone, it was a struggle to stay awake.

Honestly, I did get clarification on one thing regarding calculations of beneficiaries on Revocable Trusts, but the remaining 1 1/2 hours was torture!