Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
About Ken Tumin About Ken Tumin - Founder and Editor

Ken Tumin founded the Bank Deals Blog in 2005 and has been passionately covering the best deposit deals ever since. He is frequently referenced by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and other publications as a top expert, but he is first and foremost a fellow deal seeker and member of the wonderful community of savers that frequents DepositAccounts.

Featured Savings Rates

Popular Posts

Featured Accounts

FOMC Statement: QE3 Launched, Low-Rate Guidance Pushed Out to Mid-2015

POSTED ON BY

Unfortunately for savers, the Fed gave the markets everything they wanted at its FOMC meeting with both QE3 and an extension of its low-rate guidance language. The FOMC policy statement was just released. Here's how QE3 is described:

To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee agreed today to increase policy accommodation by purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month.

The Fed pushed out its low-rate guidance language from late-2014 to mid-2015. Here's the new paragraph about the federal funds rate:

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee also decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted at least through mid-2015.

Unfortunately, they even went further with this guidance by adding the language that "the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens." I've heard the pundits say this could mean that when the Fed finally hikes rates, those rate hikes will be small and slow.

Only Jeffrey Lacker, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, voted against the policy. He was against both QE3 and the low-rate guidance. According to the statement, Lacker "opposed additional asset purchases and preferred to omit the description of the time period over which exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted."

I'm afraid these very low rates are here to stay for a long time.

At 2:15 PM EDT Chairman Bernanke will be holding a press briefing in which he'll be discussing the FOMC policy decisions. I'll update this post with any news from that press briefing.


Update 3:55pm: Before Chairman Bernanke took reporters' questions in his press briefing, he addressed the following 3 concerns that have been raised regarding the Fed's accommodative monetary policy:

  1. The notion that the Fed's security purchases are akin to fiscal spending
  2. A policy of very low rates hurt savers
  3. The Fed's policies risk inflation down the road

I transcribed Chairman Bernanke's reply to the second concern below:

My colleagues and I are very much aware that holders of interest bearing assets such as certificates of deposit are receiving very low returns. But low interest rates also support the value of many other assets that Americans own such as homes and businesses, large and small. Indeed, in general healthy investment returns cannot be sustained in a weak economy, and of course it's difficult to save for retirement or other goals without the income from a job. Thus, while low interest rates do impose some costs, Americans will ultimately benefit most from the healthy and growing economy that low interest rates help promote.

This is essentially the same reply Chairman Bernanke has stated when asked about this issue in the last couple of years. He basically says that low rates are needed to help the economy, and that has priority. In his view, savers will be helped in the long run with the return of a strong economy. Unfortunately, ultra low interest rates don't do much to help the economy as we have seen now for almost 4 years. I wonder how many years it will take for the Fed to realize this.


The remaining FOMC meetings for the year are scheduled for October 23-24 and December 11-12.


Related Posts

Comments
47 comments.


Comment #6 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

 

Folks,

This is a good news for those that are unemployed. We (the people) have given the dual mandate to our FOMC, and I'm glad to see that FOMC is mindful of it.  An excerpt from the statement states:



>> Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to

>> foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee

>> is concerned that, without further policy accommodation,

>> economic growth might not be strong enough to generate

>> sustained improvement in labor market conditions.

 

Kudos to FOMC for trying to do something for positive for the labor markets.  I know ... I know ... Since this blog is infested with the so called "savers", there will be handly any appreciation for FOMC's action.

 

Yours truly.

Anonymous

 

1
Comment #10 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
“If this does not work (and it won't), what else can the Fed do? Promise to hold rates low forever? Buy every treasury and agency?”

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/09/fed-to-increase-mbs-at-pace-of-40.html

4
Comment #11 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Gold is going through the roof now that the Fed is going to print $40 billion each month out of thin air to buy nortgage bonds. That toilet paper, known as "Federal Reserve Notes", will become increasingly worthless month after month until the whole house of cards collapses under it's own weight. Bernanke won't merely be "replaced", he will be the last Chairman of the Federal Reserve, as the people of this country demand an end to the private corporation that is ruining our country for the enrichment of a few. This greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind engineered by Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, Summers, et al, will be the last hurrah.

6
Comment #12 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

My Dear Anonymous/Paoli,

You might recall our exchange a few weeks ago where I educated you about the "legal" aspects of the IRA (Individual Retirement Account) that belonged to your so called "DP", and you were staking a claim on it.

Now I am very glad that to see that you've learned to respect of the law!  Indeed the overseas accounts that are/were held by the Governor Romny appear to be quite legal, at least there are no allegation about the legal aspect of it. 

Whether it is financially partiotic or not is a separate matter.   In fact this election is the very first time that I've come acrooss the term "Financial Partoitism". Which of course has no legal basis.

Looks to me as if the Governor is a law abiding citizen, and his performance (at Bain) was marvellous.

 

Is/was the governor close to the Wall Street? ... Sure he was.

Is being close to Wall Street something horrible?  ... Don't think so.

It "pursuit of happiness" via making money by running a hedge fund legal in our country? ... Absolutely.


Yours truly.

Anonymous

4
Comment #13 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
My even dearer educator:  I hate to blow the bubble you evidently live in but you did not educate me about anything when it comes to IRAs or finances.  That was done by myself with a lot of hard work.  Anyone who does not know the legalities of IRAs is probably too poor to own any or in jail.  I don't fit in either category but my thanks to you for wanting to keep me out of the calabose.  Prison food is not kind to my digestive problems.

2
Comment #15 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
As the Federal Reserve continues to purchase mortgage backed securities from its member banks and financial institutions to artificially prop up the financial system, I would like to remind everyone of a quote by Thomas Jefferson in regards to central banks that seems to become more and more relevant as the Fed becomes more involved.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered"

8
Comment #17 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Anonymous/Paoli,




>> Prison food is not kind to my digestive problems.

 

Err .. You must have had first-hand experience of prison food, to know this.  No?

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

1
Comment #18 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
A presidential candidate should be able to legally take advantage of the tax code. That is what Mitt Romney did/is doing. However, when you are a candidate for the highest office in the land and are proposing tax cuts/plans, etc. that will materially impact the tax code, you must be transparent as to how it affects you as a candidate. I want to know if Mitt's tax cuts will save him millions. I want to know about his tax history profile. President's must be transparent. And don't give me the argument that democrats will only attack me more the more I disclose. If you are afraid of attacks on your taxes, who wants you around when terrorists attack or in the room with the leader of OUR #1 GEO-Political Foe Russia. 

11
Comment #19 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

 

Dear Anonymous/Paoli,

Statement #1  >> Prison food is not kind to my digestive problems.

Even if you are denying, sounds very much like you have a first-hand experience.

 

Statement #2  >> My knowledge of prison food comes from what I have heard others say.

Hey was your "DP" imprisoned recently?  Did he/she/it tell you that "Honey, don't go in there, the food won't be good for your digestive problems"?

Or was this "other" some close relative of yours who has intimate knowledge about both the prison-food, and your digestive problems?

I shall be only too happy to mind the business, but since you've posted about this, you of course have invited comments about it, in effect making it my "business" !!

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

1
Comment #20 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear # 18,

>> A presidential candidate should be able to legally take advantage of the

>> tax code. That is what Mitt Romney did/is doing.

Exactly!

>> However, when you are a candidate for the highest office in

>> the land and are proposing tax cuts/plans, etc. that will

>> materially impact the tax code, you must be transparent

>> as to how it affects you as a candidate.

No.  There is no requirement like that at all.  It is always upto the candidate to disclose or not to disclose.  And if s/he is diclosing, then s/he always has a right to make a determination as to how much.

BTW, the tax return is not merely that of the Governor's.  It is a joint tax return of the Governor and his wife. Just because some curious voter(s) wants/want to know, surely it should not pressure the joint filers to diclose what is clearly not required by law.

 

>> I want to know if Mitt's tax cuts will save him millions. I want to

>> know about his tax history profile. President's must be transparent.

Sure you want to ... But that's not your right. ...

Candidate Romny has pilitely refused to satisfy your curiocity.  In return you have have a right to erither vote for him, or not.

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

5
Comment #21 by "Let them eat dog food" (anonymous) posted on
Now we savers are caught longterm between the dual pincers of low income (Bernacke keeping interest rates low) and higher and higher inflation (Bernacke printing money).

As Marie Antoinette told the starving French people, "Let them eat cake".

1
Comment #45 by Wil posted on
Wil
#21: I realize that this may be nitpicking, but I've got to set the record straight. If you had checked practically any reputable biography of Marie Antoinette, you would know that she never said "let them eat cake!" It's a popular myth that just won't go away. So, you might have said "as Marie Antoinette allegedly told the starving French people . . ." Just because the queen is dead and gone for over 200 years doesn't mean her reputation is "fair game." Anyway, it seems to me that Michelle Obama is far more a "Marie Antoinette" than was Marie Antoinette! Vacations, golfing, spending money borrowed from China, and "hardball" campaigning seem to be of greater interest to this first family than actually governing. And I am alarmed at the circumventing of the U.S. Constitution by this administration's plenitude of "tsars", executive orders, "bullying" of GM and Chrysler bondholders to circumvent bankruptcy law, apparent disregard for property rights, etc.

#29: If everyone thought like you, then the election would be a foregone conclusion. Why, then, bother having a presidential election at all? Perhaps we should just go ahead and proclaim Barack Obama "President-for-Life"! I'm sure he'd eagerly look forward to having all the time in the world to "fundamentally transform" America. Would we even be able to recognize America after its "fundamental transformation"?

Usually I prefer to stick to what's germane to the original thread in forums like this and avoid discussing politics. But so with so many of the comments made thus far being political, I have dispensed with my usual preference. Let me close with the observation that Bernanke's economic theories are not working and will never work. Printing lots of money is no way to restore a sluggish economy to health; otherwise every "banana republic" would be an oasis of prosperity. They are not, and for a reason. We at the edge of a precipice already, and these easy money policies risk triggering a fullblown financial collapse. Somebody has to get rid of Bernanke! And, even better, end the Fed's "dual mandate" so that it can stick to the primary mission of a central bank: maintaining a stable value of our currency. Maybe Ron Paul, as wild and unconventional as he may be, might have the right idea: do we even need the Fed at all? I ask this simply as a question, to which I'd be interested in seeing answers, and not as an endorsement of Ron Paul's calls to abolish the Fed.

2
Comment #22 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Ben S. Bernanke, William C. Dudley, Elizabeth A. Duke; Dennis P. Lockhart; Sandra Pianalto; Jerome H. Powell; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Jeremy C. Stein; Daniel K. Tarullo; John C. Williams, Janet L. Yellen,

I like to decision you've made to try to satify the dual mandate.

 

Dear Jeffrey M. Lacker,

As you'll see you are a small minority.

 

Dear Savers (who are using Chairman Bernanke's name for wholesome just/unjust criticism),

Well ... As you can see FOMC is not made-up of only the chairman.  There are several other learned members on FOMC with their own opinion/analysis/wisdom who have arrived at the same collective majority decision regarding the nation's monatory policy.

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

 

3
Comment #23 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
These low interst rates are killing me,  I will never be able to retire, unless I am willing to spend all my  saving doing it. Which may leave me broke at the end of my life. I am 68 years old.

I really do not care if Romney has off shore bank accounts, it is completely legal to do so, if I had his wealth I would be off shore too. I live in the US but I am not a one of those patriotic flag waving idiots when it comes to paying more taxe.s.

This is not a difficult question for me, Benanke has to go, if that means Obama has to go,  so be it. I am starting to think I would be better off financially with Romney.

My question is who would you give your money to for managing your investments Obama or Romney??? There is a lot of things that scare with romney and his D--k H--d running mate but managing my money, would not be one of them. I need higher interest rate to survive, I can not keep on working for ever

6
Comment #24 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Anonymous - #22, Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 4:06 PM

These low interst rates are killing me,  I will never be able to retire, unless I am willing to spend all my  saving doing it. Which may leave me broke at the end of my life. I am 68 years old.

I really do not care if Romney has off shore bank accounts, it is completely legal to do so, if I had his wealth I would be off shore too. I live in the US but I am not a one of those patriotic flag waving idiots when it comes to paying more taxe.s.

This is not a difficult question for me, Benanke has to go, if that means Obama has to go,  so be it. I am starting to think I would be better off financially with Romney.

My question is who would you give your money to for managing your investments Obama or Romney??? There is a lot of things that scare with romney and his idoit running mate but managing my money, would not be one of them

2
Comment #25 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Now if only I spelled idiot right in my in the above.

1
Comment #27 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear #22,

 

>> My question is who would you give your money to for managing

>> your investments Obama or Romney??? There is a lot of things

>> that scare with romney and his idoit running mate but managing

>> my money, would not be one of them

 

My answer is neither.

I'd not give my money to ex-Hedge Fund Manager Romny, for I simply cannot afford Bain's initial minimum investment amount.

I'd not give to Ex-Community Organizer or ex-Senator Obama, for obvious reasons.

 

Now let us talk about nation's money - shall we?  The President does not "manage" nation's money.  The monatory policy is not decided by the administration at all, only the fiscal policy is.  The elected legislature (congress) actually was supposed to manage the monatory policy, and not the executive branch at all.  Our legislature wisely created FOMC and delegated that responsibility to them with a careful structure in place so that the members will serve a period that will span various different years which in effect will span different legislatures and different executives.

So I have trusted and for upcoming election I continue to trust our elected representativesd to look after our collective interests.

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #29 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
#27:  You seem to have your ducks in a row concerning our national finances.  Obama cannot wave a flag and force the other leaders to change our financial policy.  However, as the President, he can and should take a leadership position and put their feet to the fire (as the saying goes) and insist they do their duty and do what is necessary to cut the deficit and keep our country from becoming financially ruined.  If our currancy loses any more of it's value so will whatever savings we may have.  I am not a fan of Romney but between the two of them, I feel Romney WILL do whatever he and Ryan have to do to keep our country from going completely bankrupt.  Take warning.  We all may have to bite the bullet with the changes that Romney may be forced to make but the alternative can be much more destructive to us, imo. 

4
Comment #31 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#29 That's all very nice & fine..............except that Romney's not going to win, so that whole scenario is beside the point.

3
Comment #32 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#29  What you say is "take a leadership position".  Isn't that what the president's job is?  He has taken a leadership position and it's called wealth distribution.  When you start spending down your saving to live on, just remember why it happened.  As for you saying romney will "do what it takes" to keep our country out of bankruptcy, don't whine when you lose any of your medicare and social security.

2
Comment #28 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Let's just face it.  If your a saver and plan to continue using your saving to generate return from CDs, etc, YOU ARE ****ED.  This website needs to start welcoming other types of investments for retirees.

Sadly,

A Saver.

9
Comment #35 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#28 - You really think that other alternatives should be mentioned here? Well, OK, heres two - COP and ROIC. Both pay dividends in excess of 4% and also provide somewhat of a potential inflation hedge. Now, wheres YOUR recommended alternatives? 

 

1
Comment #33 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Thank you, Mr. Bernanke.  Lower C.D. rates mean you help me pay less income taxes. 

5
Comment #34 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

Dear Anonymous/Paoli,


Well ... It is not really upto RR ticket or OB ticket to do something extraordinary.  Their are some limited things they can do. It is is a ommon misconception is that the President is an all powerful person.

As I see it, in our system the congress actually holds the majority of the power and even more than that it is us the people who hold the ultimate power.

President Clinton balanced the budget, and Presint Bush took up into a hole.  But did they really?  ... Don't think so. 

We the people inovated during President Clinton's years, and we the people borrowed beyond our means in President Bush's years.  ... Sure we can give credit to the President Clinton or dis-credit to President Bush, or maybe we can give credit to Chairman Greenspan and dis-credit to Chairman Bernanke. 

But in my opinion these (public) servants do not deserve much of either.  It is our collective responsibility to take credit and blame for the surplauses and deficits respectively.  It is quite easy to blame the servants, but in fact it is always upto the master (voters) to hire the right help (representatives).


Yours Truly,

Anonymous

2
Comment #36 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
.

.

 

Dear # 35,

 

I'm not #28, but I like SDIV, PSK and JNK.

 

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

1
Comment #37 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
Both candidates have assured seniors who are over a certain age that they will not lose their social security or Medicare.  Whoever gets elected, if they go back on their word, I think it will bring complete chaos in this country and that candidate's political career will be over.  You see SS and Medicare are NOT welfare payments.  WE entrusted our government with our money after years of hard work.  To not return this to Americans would be an abomination, imo.  If you read Twitter, for months there have been thousands of twitters from people stating all they have is their social security.  Unfortunately, they did not or could not save for their senior years.  Those of us who did are the fortunate ones but should not be penalized any further for doing what everyone should have.  There are many other ways to cut the Deficit.  For example, why are we giving our tax dollars to countries like Egypt who have killed our people?  We are too bankrupt ourselves to be printing fake dollars to give to our enemies and put us more in debt to China!  I certainly would not stay quiet about them taking away "our" people's SS etc. while giving our tax dollars to our enemies.  Oh!  I forgot!  We can't decide if Egypt is our enemy or our Ally!  What a sad day for America!

9
Comment #38 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
So, "while low rates impose some costs, Americans will ultimately benefit most....", and savers will be helped in the long run? Which savers are those? What was that famous Keynesian line: "in the long run, we're all dead?" (especially applicable to those of us who are retirees living on fixed incomes)

11
Comment #39 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) -37

Sounds good!  But do you really believe what you have stated.  If so, I have a 10% Treasury bond I'll sell you.  Where were you when they started taxing SS?  That's double taxation.  You sound like you have substantial savings, well just wait until that comes into play for receiving SS and medicare.  I agree that what you have stated should be the way it is, but the writing is on the wall.  Politicians promise but don't deliver.  Look out!

3
Comment #40 by lou posted on
lou
I am blown away by the Fed's actions today. Who knows where this is going to lead us. All I know is that whatever happens, I intend to preserve my capital while obtaining the best returns i can. Since none of us have ever experienced anything like this, I would have to say that the range of possibilities is really beyond my comprehension. At the end of the day, I intend to survive no matter what Bernanke does. It will certainly be challenging.

11
Comment #41 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
lou - 40  I agree with you 100%

5
Comment #42 by joe (anonymous) posted on
joe
What all you guys don't realize is the Democrats and Republicans are all the same.  It doesn't matter who wins.  They are already stealing your social security and medicare thru inflation.  Each year, your social security payment may go up nominal, but NOT in real terms.  Just read John Williams shadowstats.  The REAL inflation rate is 7%, so they are already defaulting on your social security.  I hope you guys like choosing between dog food and cat food for dinner.  Once we all get together and vote for a real person who is not a fascist socialist will we really be able to look forward.  We don't make anything in this country anymore.  We only flip someone else's burgers and supply military.   That is about it.  Really sad.

3
Comment #43 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
Lou #40:  I think you have said it for those of us who have come this far.  We are SURVIVORS!  Whatever happens in our economy, "we" are not the type to drown even if we can't swim!   If you are like me, you are a child of an immigrant who learned how to survive the Great Depression and was taught everyday the secret to surviving while others jumped out of windows and gave up!  We can only hope we have raised our children with the same courage.   This will not be about who has the most money but who has the will to survive so whether our finances are in CDs, real estate, bonds, stocks or gold and silver, it will still come down to how many Lous we have willing to do whatever it takes!  Have a great night folks!

1
Comment #44 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Romney needs to get rid of Bernanke

7
Comment #46 by Wil posted on
Wil
Sorry #29. I meant #31 in my comment #45.

1
Comment #47 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#46...........Actually I live in California, so yes this Presidential election in my state is a mere formality. Everyone knows that Obama will win this state & that same forgone conclusion where Obama or Romney will win a particular state is the case for the majority of states as we all know. Let's face it, the chances of Obama winning Utah is a little bit lower than me growing wings & achieving flight. Therefore if you live in Utah, your impact by just voting on the presidential elections is zero. You want impact, then work or donate out of state.

So the only reason I'm participating in this election is for the local & state issues. Now, if I lived in Ohio or Florida or one of the other states in play then it'd be different. But what I'm sayng is that regardless of how you or I personally feel it is VERY likely that Obama will get another term. I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is.

Pundits will often hedge & say that anything can happen.............but that's BS & disengenuous. 98% of the time "anything" does not happen. It's like the people who come here & claim that we'll all be suffering from hyperinflation or a 1930's depression if this or that person is elected. That is sheer nonsense. The much more likely scenario (98% certainty) is that nothing resembling those 2 extremes will occur. We will  continue muddling along as we have been for years regardless of whether the President is Obama, Romney or Daffy Duck. 

5
Comment #48 by lou posted on
lou
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

4
Comment #49 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
The "Jefferson" quote is a fake. It was first attributed to Jefferson in 1937.

It is obvious even before you look in Snopes. The word "corporation" wasn't used in that sense in Jefferson's time.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

 

2
Comment #50 by Bozo posted on
Bozo
Politics aside, it will be most interesting, over the next two years, to see if the "law of unintended consequences" kicks in. If the bond vigilantes finally awaken from their slumber, we could actually see longish yields rise, as inflation expectations increase. The Fed can suppress yields on MBS all they want (which is good for purchasers of conventional mortgages), but it remains to be seen if it can suppress the yield curve in its entirety. This latest move may just operate to steepen it.

Bottom line: this might actually be a good thing for those with 5-year CDs in a 5-year ladder. If the "going rate" for 5-year CDs, in two years, is well north of 2%, then give the "law of unintended consequences" a handshake.

5
Comment #51 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
All of you complaining about the coming hyperinflation need to do one thing, right now. 

Buy rental properties and mortgage them at 4% for as long as possible.

If you really believe in the coming hyperinflation, you will be gazillionaires paying off those 4% mortgages with cheap dollars while property values skyrocket and banks are making new loans at 18%. Think back to 1981. 

1
Comment #52 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
One other comment. Personally I think that we will NEVER see 18% interest rates again. The world is too highly leveraged and interdependent now. 18% rates anywhere will cause a crisis that will make the current crisis look tame.

The only way to have global interest rates at 18% would be to officially devalue all existing currency, and that will never happen. 

3
Comment #53 by Wil posted on
Wil
By the way, another "two cents" about Marie Antoinette. After the Bourbon monarchy was restored in 1814, there was a drive to have Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette canonized as saints, on the grounds of martyrdom. Given the fact that the French Revolution was highly anti-clerical and openly persecuted the Catholic Church, it seemed reasonable to consider their unjust executions as having religiious, as well as moral, meaning as they were Catholic monarchs killed in the name of an anti-religious revolution. However, in 1820 the Congregation of Rites in Rome, charged with investigating the matter by Pope Pius VII, reported that it was impossible to prove that they were killed for religious rather than (or, in addition to) political reasons, and so hopes for their canonization came to an end. "Full disclosure": I am of French-Canadian ancestry, and my sister is named Marie Antoinette.

1
Comment #54 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) -37

Two percent sequester of Medicare spending announced today.  And you had trust in Obama/Romney?  And just what are you going to do now? You stated "WE entrusted our government with our money after years of hard work."


Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/09/14/4263699/new-report-finds-that-potential.html#storylink=cpy

1
Comment #56 by Anonymous/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous/Paoli
#54  From what I read that 2% Sequester for Medicare cuts is what OBAMA has in store for us.  Sooo vote for ROMNEY!   Romney wants to make Medicare a voucher program but I don't think he will be able to put that one through.  They are all grasping at straws to save the economy and just because I had hoped our leaders would do right by us does not mean I am stupid enough to think they will.  That's why I think these next years will truly be "the survival of the fittest" (financially).

1
Comment #58 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Anonymous #57-

Yes, I am aware that the MLP is not insured.  Someone spoke to me about them and how he was getting a much higher yield than FDIC based investments.  These require more scrutiny of course.  I bought some gold and silver coins around 10 years ago and I guess it was a risk to buy them at that time.  But, it seems I have been rewarded for taking that risk.  Of course, the precious metals market might have collapsed as well.

1
Comment #60 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#58.........Sure you've been rewarded, but it could have gone the other way. The problem I have with Precious Metals in its physical form is that it produces no income...............& the fact that to get anything out of it, you actually have to sell it, which of course means you will no longer own it. So, sure as a store of value it can make sense to some degree.................but at the end of the day it is just another metal. The only time it doesn't act like just another metal is when things become completely irrational. But those moments, thankfully, are super rare.

Some people talk about $10k or even $20k gold as if it is a good thing. I say that it is certainly better to own some as opposed to not owning some in that scenario...............but a world where $10k or $20k gold is reality, is a very very bad thing, a very bad world that I wouldn't want to live in.

2
Comment #59 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I as a saving invester have asked by attorney just as many other stock investers to start a class action lawsuit against the fed for rigging the int rates with phony money this supposed to be a free mkt not one rigged by a FED agency SAVERS PLS CALL YOUR ATTORNEYS

1
Comment #61 by Truthseeker (anonymous) posted on
Truthseeker
There are many people perplexed by the decisions of Bernanke & Co. Rates are already so low that lowering them further will not help the real economy. So, why issue QE3?

The reason people are confused is that they believe Bernanke's explanation. But, it is not the truth. Bernanke is a liar and a fraud. QE3 is NOT designed to bring down unemployment or improve the economy. It is primarily designed to transfer wealth from savers to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and the other casino bankers of Wall Street. It is secondarily designed to fund deficit spending by the government. Inducing heavy inflation helps the government pay its bills.

QE is theft, though it is done under "color" of law. It represents an unconstitutional seizure of property. Unfortunately, the covert nature of monetary debasement, as a means of taxation without representation, and transfer of wealth from citizens to banks, is not well understood.

If you don't want to be the continuing victims of a group of unelected Mandarins, stacked with casino bank appointed Trojan horses, you will stop saving in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. I have warned people here about Bernanke's plans, over and over again. He plans to steal the value of your "saved" money. Long term CDs are NOT safe havens. There is nothing wrong with saving, but you must switch to gold, silver and platinum.

Paper money will always devalue to its basic cost of production. It has happened every time the stuff has been issued, even when it is ostensibly backed by gold or silver, as in the Ming dynasty in China. That is because human beings are inherently corrupt and, if they have he opportunity, many will lie, cheat and steal as much as they can. The Federal Reserve is the tool of the NYC casino banks. They are using it to lie, cheat, and steal from savers.

Anyone buying long term CDs is going to be wiped out. So, don't do it. This site is invaluable for the purpose of locating liquid money market and checking accounts that pay the highest levels of interest with the perceived "safety" of FDIC insurance. Use it for that, and forget about trying to find banks that will tie your money up in long term CDs, which are sure to lose you a bundle.

1
Comment #62 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#61  You need to change your name to "Doomsday Person" from the sound of your post.  Don't underestimate the people in this Blog.  "Wiped Out" is a harsh term to use for those of us who spent years saving, knowing bad times were coming, and preparing for them ahead of time.  How you insist we prepare, and what we really do is still up to us.  Thanks for caring anyway.

1