You are partly correct.  However, you can't just deposit $250,000 into an IRA at one time, that is, unless you roll it over from another investment. There are annual limits for qualified money.

Also, I am very sure you are wrong about the wife and husband having both $100,000 in individual accounts and joint accounts insured.  Each can name the other ITF (in trust for) and any qualified beneficiaries (children, siblings) but not have separate savings/checking and ALSO joint accounts. Still, since the FDIC rules can become confusing it's best not to take a chance.  If an individual has more than $100,000 or a couple has more than $200,000 the FDIC then considers all deposits, but that might take time. If I had lots of money, I wouldn't put it all in a bank anyway, especially now. But if that was my choice, then I'd just run around to several different banks or credit unions, which are also insured. 

Keep in mind, that no matter what the FDIC says is safe, it's probably best not to keep any more than the $250,000 limit for an IRA (per social security number) and $100,000 (including all interest) in any one bank per person, although the huge banks like Bank of America, Chase, Wachovia, Citi, etc. are pretty safe anyway. Chances are your local bank that's been in town since 1890 isn't going anywhere either.  Last year everyone panicked when the newspaper said Countrywide (a fairly new lending institution) was going under, and depositors lost money by cashing out CDs that had not yet matured, yet 6 months later, they're still in business.  Even when another bank takes over, your deposits are still covered if the limits aren't met. 

I believe Destined is correct about  the individual and joint accounts, because FDIC insurance is for "each depositor" and "Bob Smith and Sue Smith" are a different depositor than "Bob Smith"or"Sue Smith". Destined is incorrect about insurance on trust accounts. For each owner there is 100k of insurance for each beneficiary. If a husband and wife have a trust account with 3 children as beneficiaries there is 600k of insurance coverage.

The explanations I've seen explain coverage for different categories, but I don't recall seeing info on multiple categories, so I may have misunderstood how the insurance applies in those situations.  Checking with an advisor who is thoroughly familiar with the intricacies would be advisable for  anyone with anything more than a simple situation.

FWIW, coverage is for each bank.  Any depositor can have 100k of coverage  at 100 different  banks. Note that a different branch  of "Security Savings" is still "Security Savings" and not a different bank.

Money market rates at big reputable banks are around 3-4% so youd be getting about $35,000 a year in interest.  Rates are a lot lower than they were a year or two ago.  If any of you monkeys ever hit the big one, invest in real estate!  Make 10% a year in interest by owner financing homes.  Its a buyers & landlords market right now with foreclosures at a record high obv.  Id also get some 4-week Treasury Bills to have a monthly income coming in regularly.

Actually I was 100% right about both issues.  I understand what youre saying about the trust and benefactors.  However I was just showing how you could structure the money if you had $1,000,000 in cash.  Technically the MAXIMUM protection in MY EXAMPLE would be $1,100,000 if you decided to add $100k extra to the trust.  You are right though, if you had more kids you could get more coverage, but in my example I was assuming 1 kid/benefactor.   

JustEx, normally I can agree with your detailed explanation. And I commend you for being accurate in what you state. My point was gleened over , so be it.. Thanks for seeing a difference in our views. I don't consider anyone *stupid* or having *stupid* actions by keeping money in their personal safe, no matter how little or much it is. The Point of a SAFE is to secure it. Ask any bank why they do it. Its no different. As to the poster who proclaimed that having such in their house was their own undoing , is ludricous! If a bank or a business carries CASH in their banks, then why can't a citizen do such and NOT be criticized for it. I am NOT saying that I would keep such in my household, but I certainly can have an open mind to understand those that keep rainy day funds close at hand. Even if that fund is 1 milllion. That is his business and he took the measures to place it in a secure device. That doesnt mean he should be partly to blame. Are banks to be blamed when they get robbed? Because that is the same thought pattern the one poster had.

"If a bank or a business carries CASH in their banks, then why can't a citizen do such and NOT be criticized for it."

The cash requirements of a business, and certainly a bank, are rather different from the requirements of the typical individual, even if that individual has won the lottery. What kind of rainy day do you envision where having a million dollars makes some kind of sense? That it apparenty took the vistim at least 6 weeks to notice that the money was missing says something about his need to have cash on hand.

"Are banks to be blamed when they get robbed? Because that is the same thought pattern the one poster had."

Banks have to keep cash on hand, and that's why people rob them. Unless you believe the victim took precautions that are somehow comparable to a bank's precautions the thought process of the poster definitely isn't the same. Blaming the victim isn't right, but this victim appears to have made himself a very inviting target. I agree completely that he has the right to do so, but I'm certainly curious if he did it with deliberate knowledge, or through stupidity.

This is way off the topic about the man who put money under his mattress, but I want to answer KY Floyd and Destined. 

It's been a while since I've studied the FDIC rules. I just checked the joint coverage section and it's either changed or it's a different video.  I'm not trying make excuses, but I was pretty sure they said both joint & individual accounts cannot be combined for coverage. However, now they are saying the joint account is separate. So Destined is correct about that, and I apologize, but I still wouldn't want to keep up with all the changes. The bottom line is what would happen if a bank ever failed and how easy would it be to get your money.

Well, hopefully someday I'll need to worry about all this money!  LOL

Edit:  I take back my apology.  I just read Destined's other comment.  Anyone who says "you monkeys" to express his so-called expertise isn't worth answering.   

BTW, I know a lot of landlords who have several empty units and are stuck with mortgages and high tax bills & rising property insurance.  The ones who own the properties still need to cover taxes, insurance and maintenance.  My neighbor finally hired a real estate agent and the home has been empty since October. 

GameGrl, I didn't skip over your point.  I respect what you are saying.  I don't like it when people tell me how to run my life either.

I was only saying that I'm guessing the million dollars was not insured. It is insured in a bank.  (not a safe deposit box)   That's all.  If a bank is robbed, the bank will replace your money.   It's 4:30 in the morning. If I went outside and took a walk to 7-11, it would probably be foolish. I used to take walks at night all the time, but I was told it's not safe. That still doesn't mean someone has the right to assault me.  Still, we all need to use a little common sense once in a while.

  Family members!     

Thank you! All it is is common sense. Does the guy have a right to keep millions of dollars in his home? Sure. Does he deserve to get robbed? No. But if you don't have a very good safe or security in your home, then odds are something like this will or could happen. He was robbed by his relatives, so something was lacking in his security and odds are he won't get most of his money back. If it had been in a bank, he probably would not be going through this.