Politics | 09/15/2008 7:30 am

Wilbur Ross Tells CNBC That 'A Thousand Regional Banks Could Fail,' FDIC Basics For Depositors

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

In an exclusive interview, Wilbur Ross tells CNBC that "possibly a thousand banks will close." Ross, the founder of private equity firm WL Ross & Company, is a billionaire investor who specializes in turning around underperforming companies. He is a respected commentator and prognosticator on financial matters.

Responding to the dramatic turn of events on Wall Street wherein 150+-year-old Lehman Brothers is preparing for bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch is bought by Bank of America in a forced marriage orchestrated by the Federal Reserve and insurance giant AIG is seeking capital, Ross sees the turmoil creeping into the commercial banking sector as the real estate and credit crisis continues to unwind.

While Ross sees investment opportunities for "vulture capitalists" in the coming banking carnage, for individual account holders at these regional banks, it is important that they take time to review where their money is and that all of their accounts fall under FDIC protection. The FDIC has online information to help depositors make sure their accounts are in FDIC-protected institutions and instruments and that they each fall under the $100,000 limit.

See the entire interview and video by clicking here.

FDIC Insurance Basics can be found by clicking here.

Read more about: Banking, CNBC, Credit Crisis, FDIC Basics, Financial, News, Wall Street, Wilbur Ross

206 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Question….perhaps get some facts which are easily obtainable through the Commerce Dept and GAO. Republican propaganda to the contrary, every strong economic cycle of growth and job creation has been under Democrats including when FDR saved America’s bacon and put together programs that created jobs and got America moving again. This was after George Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush had his bank’s assets seized by the US Government under the Trading with the Enemy Act. He and his fellow war profitters had helped to fund Hitler’s rise to power. The Bush family has made its fortune by sleazy bank deals, arms sales and war profiterring. So apparently you don’t questions everything, or find the right answers, or ask the right questions, or you’d be a lot more knowledgeable about what’s at the heart of America’s debacle instead of spouting thin/superficial explanations as above. Go right ahead and vote for Republicans and against your own best interest. That’s what ‘smart’ folks do.

By HoBo Economy Thanks Bush-McSame on 09/15/2008 11:41 am

e-mail alert

Who’s a Republican?

By K O on 09/15/2008 11:46 am

e-mail alert

Kitty, You are questioning someone calling you a “Republican” but not “Comment Nazi”? (did you even see that?) I think you have made it very clear that you are an Independent.

By Brooklyn Gal on 09/15/2008 3:13 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Carol, After 30 years of finance, including many on Wall St., traders called me things much worse than “Comment Nazi.” Doesn’t bother me in the slightest.

By K O on 09/15/2008 8:49 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Suzanne, I took your advice. You know what you speak of with regards to “spouting thin/superficial explanations.” I finished reading all 133 posts to get the facts about what you are about. I read that you admit to having “two speeds…very gregarious or needing to be alone.” I’ll factor in your response By Suzanne de Cornelia on 09/15/2008 11:41 am was in extreme gregarious speed. All the best to you.

By Hobo Questioning Almost Everything on 09/20/2008 12:55 pm

e-mail alert

QAE: …that the Democrat party will take this and play it into their hands for the sake of a win in November. They’ll try, anyway. However, most of us realize that we’ve had a Democratic majority in congress for the past two years. A Dem majority with Nancy Pelosi leading the Representatives. Where have they been while this storm was gathering? Where are they now? Are they in session or still on vacation? We need a major congressional clean out.

By Marjorie C. on 09/15/2008 11:41 am

e-mail alert

Marjorie and Kitty Clinton came in to his first term on the heels of the GHW Bush’s tax hikes. Which were starting to deal with some of the shortages due to spending by a democrat majority in congress. Clinton campaigned on reducing the tax burden we the people, got into office and realized he had to raise taxes even more. I believe at that the time there was a democrat majority in congress. Things got worse for a while, not better, unemployment rose, many small business closed, banks began to have more power to raise interest rates which burdened those that were struggling, HMO’s were problematic, but not as bad as today and the recession problem continued to plague us. We the people were upset, and yes Clinton worked hard to change the atmosphere. California passed welfare reform, and the Fed govt. was also pressured to pass it, and Clinton did. Clinton was in big trouble, with a very low poll rating setting the stage for the Republicans to gain the majority in 1996 and they came up with their “Contract with America.” Clinton wasn’t too happy, but being the centrist that he is, had to go along, which turned the economy and got people back to work. They then lowered taxes, which stimulated the economy more, businesses were empowered to create more jobs and the federal tax revenues rose. Just to let you know, I voted for Clinton. From a practical standpoint, how can we forget that there were democrats and republicans that were taking the perks from special interests, and the campaign contributions, who all together, got richer while we slept.

By Frannie Em on 09/15/2008 2:43 pm

e-mail alert

Marjorie and Kitty I should have prefaced that with the question, of Am I forgetting something here? I seem to remember that many things went on on boh sides of the aisle. Also, didn’t the republicans hold maybe a one or two seat lead? Then one guy went Independent, but voted more with the democrats? It is odd to me how so many on this site quote that the repubs had a majority, but it wasn’t that large. There were enough democrats to work and deal with problems, yet it seems that neither side was really on the ball.

By Frannie Em on 09/15/2008 2:48 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Frannie, Neither party has much to be proud of on the economic front. As you pointed out, there’s the President - then there’s Congress. Many forget that President Clinton’s best economic years were after “The Contract With America” pushed him much closer to the center.

By K O on 09/16/2008 11:33 am

e-mail alert

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html Here, question, is a very good article on supply side economics. Download it to PDF.

By Diana T on 09/15/2008 12:06 pm

e-mail alert

To “Question Almost Everything”…you say you’re not a Rep. or Dem., but you refer to the Democratic party as the “Democrat” party. That right there tells us you’re a Republican. Democrats call it by its accurate name: the Democratic Party. The radical Republicans like Rush Limburger started calling it the “Democrat” party several years back. And it’s an absolute fallacy that “the fall is most due to banks, realtors,” etc. The loss of jobs - hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest and elsewhere - and the $130-billion-a-year Iraq War started the snowball downhill.

By James the Game on 09/15/2008 12:57 pm

e-mail alert

James, Surely that doesn’t prove anything-I’ve never been a Republican in my life and I’m sure I must have used that term “Democrat Party” before. A mere slip of the tongue, or typing fingers moving too fast or maybe just lack of sophistication, choose your pick.

By JJ GB on 09/15/2008 1:18 pm

e-mail alert

Sorry for the delay - I’ve been very busy today gathering my millions from the various banking establishments. It’s taken me all day to get it stuffed into the mattresses in my 10 thousand bedroom house….at least I think that’s what republicans do (wink). To James on 09/15/2008 12:57 pm - What can I say but the spell checker failed me, I’d fire him but he has kids and can use the insurance. Not so sure about the remainder of your post, but I will do a little more research. Thanks for the info. JJ GB on 09/15/2008 1:18 pm - dude, you could have added “spell checker failure” as an option.

By Hobo Questioning Almost Everything on 09/16/2008 8:53 pm

e-mail alert

Private profits, socialized losses. Corporate welfare but to the average person it’s every man for himself.

By DeBúrca obj on 09/15/2008 9:11 am

e-mail alert

the glass-steagall act in 1933 separated commercial (your deposits) from investment banking. in www.commondreams.org , nomi prins says: The Fed wants to avoid another huge failure in Merrill Lynch by pushing it under the rug of Bank of America, but B of A can’t possibly know the extent of Merrill’s potential losses. That a commercial bank is taking over a speculative giant is much more dangerous than Lehman Brothers tanking. The Fed was well within its rights to say ‘no’ to Lehman’s plea for a bailout. But unlike Lehman or Bear, B of A is responsible for the accounts of millions of customers-real people with real money on the line. If Bank of America gets in real trouble, the Fed’s hand may be forced. the recent repeal of glass-steagall that bill clinton signed paved the way for the irresponsible behavior of banks that bush refused to regulate. we need a new glass-steagall type act of congress and senate.

By mary lou s on 09/16/2008 2:52 pm