• Home
  • About Us
  • Getting Finances Done
    • Hiring Advisors
    • Debt Management
    • Spending Plan
  • Insurance
    • Life Insurance
    • Health Insurance
    • Disability Insurance
    • Homeowners/Renters Insurance
  • Contact Us
  • Our Editorial Commitment

The Free Financial Advisor

You are here: Home / Archives for banking

Are You Being Underpaid on Your Savings? The Latest FDIC Numbers Give You a Benchmark

September 13, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

Are You Being Underpaid on Your Savings? The Latest FDIC Numbers Give You a Benchmark
The FDIC’s 0.38% national savings-rate benchmark can help consumers spot accounts that pay little interest compared with competitive high-yield savings options – Shutterstock

A savings account can look perfectly respectable until its interest rate gets compared with what other banks pay. The FDIC’s latest national average puts the typical savings account at just 0.38%, while competitive high-yield savings accounts currently offer rates around 4% or more.

That difference matters because the money sitting in a savings account does not take a day off. It keeps waiting, month after month, whether the bank rewards it generously or barely tosses it a few crumbs. This FDIC number gives savers a useful benchmark for deciding whether a bank deserves to keep earning their business.

The FDIC Number Is a Benchmark, Not a Gold Star

The FDIC reports a national savings rate of 0.38% for September 2026, a figure that reflects the average rate paid across insured institutions and credit unions included in its data. The agency calculates the national rate using deposit-weighted averages, which means larger institutions have more influence on the figure than smaller banks.

That distinction matters because 0.38% does not represent the best rate available to consumers. It represents what the broad market pays on average, so a bank paying around that amount does not necessarily offer a competitive deal just because it matches the national figure. Think of the FDIC number as the floor for comparison, not a trophy your bank gets for participation.

A Savings Account Can Be Safe and Still Pay Poorly

A common misconception involves confusing a bank’s safety with the quality of its interest rate. FDIC insurance can protect eligible deposits at an insured bank within applicable coverage limits, but that protection does not force the bank to pay a competitive yield.

That means a familiar brick-and-mortar bank can provide perfectly legitimate deposit insurance while still paying a surprisingly small amount on savings. There is nothing inherently wrong with keeping money there, especially if convenient branches, existing banking relationships, or other services matter to the household. But convenience should not automatically come with a permanent discount on the interest earned.

The Gap Between 0.38% and 4% Is Hard to Ignore

Current high-yield savings accounts can offer rates around 4% or higher, depending on the institution and account terms. That creates a substantial spread between what a typical savings account pays and what a competitive account can offer.

Consider someone with a sizeable emergency fund sitting untouched for months or years. A rate difference that looks tiny on a bank website can translate into a meaningful amount of interest over time, particularly as the balance grows. The money does not need to become an investment portfolio to earn more, either, because a qualifying deposit account can provide access to cash while potentially paying a much better yield.

Before Moving Your Money, Check the Fine Print

A flashy APY deserves a closer look before anyone starts transferring money. Some accounts require minimum balances, direct deposits, linked accounts, specific activity, or other conditions before customers receive the advertised rate, while promotional rates can also come with expiration dates.

Liquidity matters, too, because a savings account serves a different purpose from a certificate of deposit. A CD can lock in a rate for a set term, while a savings account generally provides easier access to cash, although each institution sets its own withdrawal and account rules. A slightly lower rate with no hoops may make more sense for an emergency fund than a higher rate that creates headaches every time money needs to move.

Your Bank May Not Volunteer a Better Deal

Banks do not necessarily send a parade to your front door when another institution starts paying more on savings. Customers often need to check their current APY, compare it with competing offers, and decide whether the difference justifies changing accounts.

The comparison does not need to become a weekend-long research project. Start with the rate shown on the current account statement or online banking page, compare it with the FDIC benchmark, then look at several competitive savings accounts and their requirements. If the current rate sits near the national average while another insured account offers a substantially higher APY without burdensome conditions, that deserves a serious look.

Make Your Savings Rate Earn Its Place

The FDIC’s 0.38% national average gives savers a useful reality check, but it should not become an excuse to settle for a mediocre rate. A bank can provide excellent customer service, convenient branches, and FDIC insurance while still paying less interest than a competitor.

The smartest comparison considers the whole package, including APY, fees, minimum balances, access to cash, account requirements, and insurance coverage. Rates can change, so a winning account today may not remain the winner forever, which makes an occasional rate check worth the few minutes it takes.

If your savings account pays something close to the FDIC average, it may be time to ask a simple question: Is your bank giving your money a good home, or merely a place to sit?

You May Also Like…

Federal Reserve Approves Banco Santander Application Affecting U.S. Banking Operations

You Have $30,000 in Savings and $15,000 in Debt. What Should You Do With the Money?

Ages 60 to 63: How the New Catch-Up Contribution Rules Change Retirement Saving

HSA & FSA Increases Mean Tax-Free Savings—But You Must Plan Ahead

8 Banking Policies Changing This Year That Could Freeze Your Money

Brandon Marcus
Brandon Marcus

Brandon Marcus is a writer who has been sharing the written word since a very young age. His interests include sports, history, pop culture, and so much more. When he isn’t writing, he spends his time jogging, drinking coffee, or attempting to read a long book he may never complete.

Filed Under: Personal Finance Tagged With: banking, FDIC, high-yield savings, interest rates, money management, Personal Finance, saving money, savings accounts

Why Banks Sometimes Close Accounts Without Warning

September 12, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

Why Banks Sometimes Close Accounts Without Warning
A bank account closure can disrupt direct deposits, automatic payments, and access to funds, so customers should keep records and maintain a backup banking option – Shutterstock

A bank account can feel like one of the most permanent things in adult life. Money goes in, bills come out, the debit card gets used at the grocery store, and everything hums along in the background. Then a bank can decide to close the account,  leaving customers scrambling to move direct deposits, reroute automatic payments, and figure out what happened.

That can feel personal, but an account closure does not necessarily mean the bank thinks a customer did something wrong. Banks monitor accounts for fraud, suspicious activity, violations of account agreements, and other risks, and federal law does not require banks to keep every account open indefinitely. The important part is knowing what can trigger a closure and what steps can make the situation less painful.

Suspicious Activity Can Put an Account Under a Microscope

Banks constantly monitor transactions because criminals love banking systems almost as much as ordinary customers do. A sudden burst of unusual transfers, deposits that look inconsistent with an account’s normal activity, or transactions connected to questionable sources can trigger additional scrutiny. That does not automatically mean the customer committed a crime, but the bank may decide that the account creates too much compliance or fraud risk.

This can create a frustrating situation for legitimate customers, particularly when someone receives an unusual payment, starts moving money between several accounts, or travels and suddenly uses the account in unfamiliar places. A bank may ask questions or request documentation, although it does not always provide a detailed explanation when it closes an account. Financial institutions also have legal obligations surrounding suspicious activity reporting, which can limit what employees can tell customers about certain investigations.

Banks Can Close Accounts Over Rule Violations

Every checking or savings account comes with an agreement, even if nobody reads the entire thing while opening the account. That agreement can restrict certain activities, such as using a personal account for particular business purposes, maintaining required information, or engaging in transactions the bank prohibits. Repeated violations can give the institution a reason to end the relationship.

The tricky part involves activities that seem harmless from the customer’s perspective. Someone might use a personal checking account to collect payments for a side hustle, make transactions for another person, or repeatedly move money in ways the bank considers inconsistent with the account’s intended use. A customer may see ordinary money movement, while the bank sees activity that conflicts with its terms or risk controls.

Fraud Concerns Can Change Everything

Fraud creates another major reason banks may move quickly. If a bank detects transactions that resemble account takeover, identity theft, check fraud, unauthorized transfers, or other suspicious behavior, it may restrict or close an account while it investigates. Sometimes the customer actually represents the victim in that scenario, which makes an account closure especially maddening.

A compromised account can also become difficult to use because the bank has to protect the financial system while sorting out what happened. Customers should report unauthorized transactions promptly and keep records of messages, transaction details, and conversations with the bank. If the bank closes the account, those records can help when disputing transactions or explaining the situation to another financial institution.

A Bank May Not Give the Explanation Customers Want

One of the most unsettling parts of an account closure involves the lack of detail. Customers often expect a neat explanation such as, “The account closed because of this transaction,” but banks may provide only a general reason or simply state that they decided to end the banking relationship. Federal rules governing suspicious activity reporting can make certain details off-limits.

That does not mean customers have no options. Ask the bank whether it will provide the closure reason in writing, when the bank will release any remaining funds, and how the customer should handle pending transactions. Keep copies of statements and correspondence, especially if direct deposits, automatic bill payments, or checks remain connected to the account.

The Best Defense Is Having a Backup Plan

An account closure becomes much more disruptive when every financial obligation runs through one checking account. Keeping another legitimate account at a separate financial institution can provide breathing room if one bank suddenly ends the relationship. That backup account can help receive income and cover essential bills while the customer sorts out the closed account.

Customers should also keep important payment information somewhere secure rather than relying entirely on a debit card or banking app. When a closure occurs, update employers, government agencies, utilities, lenders, subscription services, and anyone else that sends or pulls money from the account. It also helps to check for outstanding checks and automatic payments because a closed account can turn an ordinary payment into an expensive headache.

A Closed Account Does Not Mean the Money Disappears

A bank closing an account does not automatically give the institution ownership of the customer’s legitimate remaining balance. Depending on the circumstances, the bank generally needs to return available funds, although the process can involve checks, holds, outstanding transactions, or other complications. Customers should ask exactly how and when the bank will make the remaining balance available.

If a customer believes the bank mishandled the closure or failed to address an unauthorized transaction, a written complaint can create a useful paper trail. Customers can also contact the appropriate federal or state banking regulator when they need help with a banking complaint. The key is to act quickly rather than letting a pile of unanswered emails and rejected payments turn one unpleasant surprise into five separate financial problems.

Treat a Bank Account Like a Relationship With an Exit Plan

Banking rarely feels exciting until something goes wrong, and an unexpected account closure can turn a routine Tuesday into a full-scale financial scavenger hunt. Banks have legitimate reasons to monitor and sometimes terminate accounts, but customers can reduce the disruption by keeping records, reviewing account agreements, responding promptly to bank questions, and maintaining a backup banking option.

The biggest takeaway is simple: convenience should not become complete dependence. A second account, organized payment records, and a little awareness of how banks monitor activity can make an abrupt closure much easier to handle.

Has a bank ever closed or restricted an account you used, and what happened afterward?

You May Also Like…

7 Bank Accounts Worth Rechecking After the FDIC’s Latest National Rate Update

What to Know About Banking Habits That Can Complicate a Fraud Investigation

Digital Dollar Discussions Are Raising New Concerns About Privacy and Banking

What to Know About Banking Habits That Can Complicate a Fraud Investigation

Before You Shred That Bank Statement, Read This

Brandon Marcus
Brandon Marcus

Brandon Marcus is a writer who has been sharing the written word since a very young age. His interests include sports, history, pop culture, and so much more. When he isn’t writing, he spends his time jogging, drinking coffee, or attempting to read a long book he may never complete.

Filed Under: Banking Tagged With: account closures, bank accounts, bank closures, banking, checking accounts, consumer banking, financial safety, savings accounts

The Average Money Market Rate Is Only 0.63%—Here’s Why September Is a Good Time to Check Your Account

September 10, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

The Average Money Market Rate Is Only 0.63%—Here’s Why September Is a Good Time to Check Your Account
A money market account paying the 0.63% national average may lag far behind competitive accounts offering around 3% to 4% APY, making September a smart time to compare rates and account terms – Shutterstock

A money market account paying 0.63% might sound like a perfectly respectable place to park cash until the math gets involved. At that rate, $10,000 earns roughly $63 over a year before taxes, assuming the balance stays put and the rate remains unchanged. The national average for money market deposit accounts sits at 0.63%, according to recent data tied to the FDIC’s national rate figures.

That number matters, but it does not tell the whole story. September offers a particularly useful moment to check a money market account because financial institutions continue to offer dramatically different yields, and some competitive accounts currently offer rates around 3% to 4% APY. A quick account review could reveal that the money sitting quietly in an old account has plenty of room to earn more.

The Average Rate Hides a Pretty Big Gap

The 0.63% figure represents a national average, not a recommendation for what a money market account should pay. Banks and credit unions can set their own rates, and the difference between an ordinary account and a competitive one can become surprisingly large. Current rate comparisons show some money market accounts offering roughly 3.50% to 4.00% APY, several times the national average. That makes the average useful as a benchmark, but not especially useful as a reason to settle.

Consider someone with $20,000 in cash earmarked for a home repair fund, emergency expenses, or another near-term goal. A 0.63% APY would produce about $126 over a year if the balance stayed constant, while a 4% APY would produce about $800 before taxes. The difference does not require a risky investment strategy, a stock-picking hobby or a financial wizard’s hat, just a different deposit account and a willingness to compare the terms.

September Makes a Good Account Checkpoint

September naturally creates a useful financial reset because summer spending has ended for many households and the final stretch of the year sits just ahead. That makes it a convenient time to review cash that has accumulated in checking, savings or an old money market account. A rate that looked competitive months ago may no longer look impressive today, especially when institutions adjust their yields as interest-rate conditions change. Money market rates can move, so an account that deserved a gold star last year may now deserve a polite side-eye.

The Federal Reserve also has a policy meeting scheduled for September 15 and 16, which adds another reason to pay attention to deposit rates this month. Federal Reserve decisions can influence the broader interest-rate environment, and banks can respond by changing what they pay on deposits. That does not mean anyone should try to predict the next rate move and rearrange every dollar accordingly. It simply means September provides a sensible excuse to check whether an account still earns a competitive return.

The Fine Print Deserves More Attention Than the Big APY

A higher APY looks great on a comparison chart, but the number alone cannot tell whether an account fits a particular household. Some money market accounts require minimum balances, impose fees or use rate tiers that reward larger balances. Others may offer conveniences such as debit-card access or check-writing features, which can make them more useful for money that needs occasional access.

Before moving money, check the account’s minimum balance, monthly fees, withdrawal rules, rate tiers and current APY. Also confirm whether the bank carries FDIC insurance or the credit union carries NCUA insurance, generally up to $250,000 per depositor at each insured institution for qualifying deposits. A flashy rate that disappears after a promotional period can look much less exciting once the promotion ends. The same goes for an account that charges a monthly fee large enough to nibble away at the interest. A few minutes with the account disclosure can prevent an unpleasant surprise later.

The Money Does Not Have to Stay in One Account Forever

A money market account can make sense when someone wants interest on cash without locking the money away in a CD. That flexibility can prove useful for an emergency fund, a major purchase planned within the next year or cash that needs to remain readily accessible. High-yield savings accounts can also offer competitive rates, so anyone comparing money market accounts should look beyond the name on the account and compare the actual APY and terms.

The important part involves matching the account to the job the money needs to perform. Cash needed next month should not chase a slightly higher yield at the expense of easy access, while cash sitting untouched for years may deserve a broader review of savings, CDs or other options. There is also no prize for loyalty to a bank that quietly pays less than its competitors. If another federally insured institution offers a substantially better rate with reasonable terms, moving some cash may make perfectly good financial sense.

Give That 0.63% Account a September Checkup

The 0.63% national average does not mean money market accounts have become useless, and it certainly does not mean every account paying around that rate needs an immediate exit. It does mean account holders have a useful benchmark for asking a simple question: Is this account still competitive? With some current money market accounts offering rates around 3% to 4%, the gap deserves attention.

September can turn that question into a quick financial housekeeping task. Pull up the account, check the current APY, read the fee schedule and compare a few alternatives before deciding whether to move anything. Even if the account remains the right choice, knowing what it pays removes the mystery. And if the rate has quietly fallen behind, a small banking chore could put considerably more of the household’s cash to work.

Would a higher money market rate make you consider moving your cash, or does convenience matter more when choosing where to keep savings?

You May Also Like…

3 Money Lessons Every Market Correction Teaches

4 Personal Finance Moves People Are Making Right Now Before Interest Rates Shift Again

How AI Is Changing Personal Finance Faster Than Most Consumers Realize

Injured While Walking? How to Protect Your Finances After a Pedestrian Accident

You Retire With $1 Million on the Day the Market Drops 20%. Now What?

Brandon Marcus
Brandon Marcus

Brandon Marcus is a writer who has been sharing the written word since a very young age. His interests include sports, history, pop culture, and so much more. When he isn’t writing, he spends his time jogging, drinking coffee, or attempting to read a long book he may never complete.

Filed Under: Personal Finance Tagged With: APY, banking, cash savings, interest rates, money market accounts, Personal Finance, savings, September 2026

7 Bank Accounts Worth Rechecking After the FDIC’s Latest National Rate Update

September 9, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

7 Bank Accounts Worth Rechecking After the FDIC’s Latest National Rate Update
The FDIC’s August 2026 update shows national averages of 0.38% for savings, 0.63% for money market accounts and 1.71% for 12-month CDs. These averages can help savers spot accounts that deserve a closer look – Shutterstock

A bank account can sit quietly for years while the interest rate attached to it changes around it. That makes the FDIC’s latest national rate update a useful excuse to revisit where cash actually lives, especially when a familiar account may now look less attractive than it did when it first opened. The latest available update, released in August 2026, shows national averages ranging from just 0.07% for interest checking to 1.71% for a 12-month CD.

Those figures do not tell anyone which bank offers the best deal, and that distinction matters. The FDIC national rates represent averages, not shopping recommendations, so a bank that pays far more than the average can sit right beside one that pays practically nothing. The next update arrives September 21, which gives account holders a handy reason to check the fine print now rather than letting another month of interest quietly wander off.

1. Regular Savings Accounts

A plain savings account earns the first inspection because it often holds money that could earn considerably more without sacrificing easy access. The FDIC’s August 2026 national average for savings stood at 0.38%, a figure that makes a traditional low-yield account worth questioning if it has become the permanent parking spot for a sizable cash balance.

The practical question involves the actual APY on the account, not the name printed on the statement. Check for minimum-balance requirements, monthly fees, introductory rates and restrictions that could turn an attractive advertised rate into something much less useful. If the account pays little while another insured savings account offers a materially higher rate with similar access, moving the money may merit serious consideration.

2. Interest-Bearing Checking Accounts

Checking accounts rarely inspire excitement, but money sitting there can still earn something while waiting to pay the electric bill. The FDIC’s August national average for interest checking reached only 0.07%, which makes a quick rate check particularly worthwhile for anyone keeping a substantial everyday balance.

Some checking accounts advertise impressive yields, but those offers often come with conditions. Direct deposit requirements, debit-card transactions, balance limits or other hoops can determine whether the advertised APY actually applies to the entire balance. Before switching, compare those requirements with normal spending habits because an account that demands a monthly obstacle course can become more trouble than the extra interest warrants.

3. Money Market Accounts

Money market deposit accounts sit in an interesting middle ground because they can offer savings features while sometimes providing easier access to funds. The FDIC placed the national average money market rate at 0.63% in August, higher than the average for both savings and interest checking accounts.

That difference does not automatically make every money market account the winner. Compare the rate, minimum balance, fees, transaction rules and access features against a high-yield savings account before moving cash. A money market account can make sense for money that needs liquidity, but there is little reason to pay for extra complexity when another account offers comparable access and a better yield.

4. One-Month CDs

A one-month CD sounds wonderfully tidy until the rate enters the conversation. The FDIC’s August national average for a one-month CD was just 0.22%, which makes this particular term worth examining before locking up cash simply because the commitment feels short.

Short does not automatically mean useful. A CD also can impose an early-withdrawal penalty, and the issuing bank sets the specific terms. If a one-month CD pays less than a readily accessible savings option, the loss of flexibility can make the arrangement look rather silly. Check the actual APY and penalty before treating a short CD as a clever little cash-management trick.

5. Three-Month CDs

Three-month CDs deserve their own review because they occupy a different spot on the rate curve. The FDIC’s August national average reached 1.14%, substantially above the one-month average but still far below many competitive offers available from individual institutions.

That gap creates an important lesson: an FDIC average represents the market as a whole, not the rate a saver should automatically accept. Someone with cash that will remain untouched for three months can compare actual CD offers and then weigh the yield against the inconvenience of locking up the money. The calendar matters, too, because a three-month CD makes much more sense for money with a predictable future use than for an emergency fund that might need to escape tomorrow morning.

6. Six-Month CDs

Six-month CDs should get another look when cash has a firm job but does not need immediate access. The FDIC reported a 1.41% national average for six-month CDs in August 2026, putting this term above the shorter CD averages.

Still, the rate alone should not make the decision. Check whether the CD automatically renews, what happens at maturity and how much the bank charges for an early withdrawal. A six-month commitment can work nicely for money earmarked for a known expense, but emergency savings should not take a vacation inside a CD with an inconvenient exit door.

7. Twelve-Month CDs

The 12-month CD stands out in the latest numbers because its 1.71% national average exceeds the averages for the shorter and longer CD terms. The FDIC data show the average falling after the one-year mark, with two-year CDs at 1.57%, three-year CDs at 1.34%, four-year CDs at 1.27% and five-year CDs at 1.36%.

That pattern makes blindly choosing the longest CD a particularly questionable move. A longer term does not automatically deliver a higher rate, and tying up money for several years deserves a clear reason beyond the word “CD” appearing in the product name. Compare the one-year offer with shorter and longer terms, consider when the money will become useful, and remember that the FDIC national average serves as a benchmark rather than a ceiling on what a shopper can find.

The Rate Check That Could Pay for Itself

The biggest takeaway from the latest FDIC update involves comparison rather than any single percentage. Savings, checking, money market accounts and CDs all serve different jobs, so the best account depends on when the money needs to move and how much flexibility it requires.

A quick account audit can reveal an old checking account earning almost nothing, a savings account carrying a stale rate or a CD that no longer fits the original plan. The FDIC’s numbers provide a useful measuring stick, while the actual APYs, fees and withdrawal rules at individual banks provide the information needed to make a decision. With another national update scheduled for September 21, there is little reason to let a forgotten rate continue collecting interest for the bank instead of the account holder.

Which bank account are you considering rechecking after the latest FDIC rate update, and what would make you switch?

You May Also Like…

Federal Reserve Approves Banco Santander Application Affecting U.S. Banking Operations

FDIC Changes Reciprocal Deposit Rules for Banks Under New Housing Law

The New Banking Trend That Could Make Paper Checks Harder to Use

8 Banking Policies Changing This Year That Could Freeze Your Money

FDIC Publishes 2026 Risk Review Covering Funding, Interest Rate, and Credit Risks Facing Banks

Brandon Marcus
Brandon Marcus

Brandon Marcus is a writer who has been sharing the written word since a very young age. His interests include sports, history, pop culture, and so much more. When he isn’t writing, he spends his time jogging, drinking coffee, or attempting to read a long book he may never complete.

Filed Under: Banking Tagged With: banking, CDs, checking accounts, FDIC, interest rates, money market accounts, Personal Finance, saving money, savings accounts

How Much Money Should You Actually Keep in Your Checking Account?

September 7, 2026 by Brandon Marcus Leave a Comment

How Much Money Should You Actually Keep in Your Checking Account?
A healthy checking-account balance should cover upcoming bills, everyday spending, and a reasonable cushion while keeping longer-term savings separate – Shutterstock

A checking account should make everyday life easier, not turn into a mysterious pile of money that grows without a purpose. For many households, the right balance covers upcoming bills, routine spending, and a little breathing room without leaving a giant chunk of cash sitting idle.

That last part matters because checking accounts generally exist for spending and bill payments, while savings accounts often serve a better job for money that does not need to sit within arm’s reach. The ideal checking balance depends on income, bills, spending habits, and how often money moves in and out, so a useful target needs more thought than simply picking a round number and calling it done.

Start With the Bills That Cannot Wait

The most practical place to begin involves the expenses that absolutely must leave the account, such as rent or mortgage payments, utilities, insurance, loan payments, groceries, transportation, and recurring subscriptions. Look at the next several weeks of scheduled withdrawals and regular spending rather than focusing only on the balance displayed today. A checking account with a large balance can still create trouble if several hefty payments sit just around the corner. Timing matters almost as much as the total amount of money available. Someone who receives a paycheck every two weeks may need a different checking cushion than someone who receives irregular freelance income.

A useful target should cover upcoming obligations while leaving room for ordinary purchases that tend to sneak into the calendar. That cushion can help prevent overdrafts when a utility bill runs higher than expected or a forgotten annual charge suddenly appears. The goal does not involve predicting every expense with perfect accuracy, because real life refuses to cooperate with perfect budgets. Instead, build the balance around expenses that people can reasonably expect and add enough breathing room to handle minor surprises. Once that number becomes clear, the checking account starts looking less like a savings account and more like what it actually needs to be: a financial staging area for money with a job.

Give Your Checking Account a Cushion

A checking cushion can make a surprisingly big difference because account balances rarely move in neat little lines. Automatic payments can hit on different dates, debit-card purchases can pile up, and a bill can cost more than expected. A modest buffer can absorb those annoyances without forcing a scramble between accounts. The right cushion varies from household to household, but it should feel large enough to prevent routine timing problems without becoming an excuse to park unnecessary dollars in checking. People with highly predictable income and expenses may need less padding than people whose paychecks or bills fluctuate.

There is another important distinction here: a checking cushion should not replace an emergency fund. Money for a major car repair, prolonged income interruption, medical expense, or other significant financial shock generally deserves a separate home, such as a savings account, where it remains available without mingling with everyday spending. Keeping everything in checking can make a healthy emergency reserve look like spending money, which can quietly encourage lifestyle creep. Separate accounts also create a psychological boundary that makes it easier to tell which dollars have a job today and which dollars have a job later. A checking account works best when its balance reflects near-term needs plus a reasonable buffer, not every dollar someone owns.

Watch the Calendar, Not Just the Balance

One of the easiest mistakes involves checking the account balance and assuming that number tells the whole story. A balance might look wonderfully healthy on Monday while several automatic withdrawals sit ready to arrive later in the week. Reviewing scheduled payments alongside the current balance gives a much clearer picture of what money remains available for actual spending. Many banks provide alerts for low balances, upcoming transactions, or large purchases, and those tools can help catch problems before they turn into expensive overdrafts. A quick account check can save far more hassle than repairing a mistake after a payment bounces.

Cash-flow timing matters even more for households with irregular income. Someone who gets paid on different dates each month may need a larger checking cushion because the account has to bridge longer gaps between deposits. A household with two predictable paychecks and carefully timed automatic payments may have more flexibility. The key involves matching the balance to the rhythm of the household rather than copying another person’s number. A friend with a $10,000 checking balance may have completely different bills, income timing, and financial priorities, making that figure practically meaningless for someone else.

Do Not Let Checking Become a Money Parking Lot

A checking account can quietly accumulate excess cash when people become cautious about moving money elsewhere. That approach feels safe because the money remains immediately accessible, but it can also blur the line between spending money and saving money. Once the account contains far more than upcoming expenses and a sensible cushion, consider whether the excess has a better purpose elsewhere. Depending on the goal, that could mean moving money into a savings account, paying down high-interest debt, or directing additional funds toward another financial priority. The right choice depends on the household’s circumstances, but leaving every extra dollar in checking rarely represents the only option.

Interest also deserves a place in the conversation because some checking accounts pay little or no interest, while certain savings products can offer better returns. That does not mean every dollar should chase the highest available rate, since access, fees, account rules, and financial goals all matter. Money needed for tomorrow’s bills should remain easy to access and should not sit somewhere that makes routine payments cumbersome. Money that does not need immediate access can receive a different assignment. Once every dollar has a clear job, the checking balance becomes much easier to manage.

The Sweet Spot Is Boring, Predictable, and Useful

The best checking account balance probably will not look exciting on a spreadsheet, and that is actually a good sign. It should cover the bills and spending coming soon, include a cushion for ordinary surprises, and leave true emergency savings somewhere separate. That setup reduces the chance of overdrafts without turning the checking account into a warehouse for idle cash. It also makes financial decisions easier because the balance carries a clear purpose instead of one giant question mark. Most importantly, the target should change when income, bills, or household circumstances change.

A good system can start with one simple review each month: check upcoming bills, estimate ordinary spending, confirm the cushion still feels appropriate, and move excess money according to its purpose. If the account constantly runs close to zero, the cushion may need to grow or the budget may need another look. If the balance keeps swelling month after month, some of that money may deserve a more productive assignment.

There is no universal checking-account number that magically works for everyone. The healthiest balance usually sits somewhere between financial anxiety and financial clutter, doing exactly the job the account needs it to do.

You May Also Like…

8 Financial Habits That Quietly Drain Your Checking Account

8 Credit Card Trends That Reveal Who Banks Are Lending to Right Now

Money Transfers That Can Lead to Extra Verification From Your Bank

7 FDIC Coverage Rules Couples Should Recheck Before Opening Trust or Joint Accounts

Dormancy Rule: Accounts Inactive for 3–5 Years Can Be Sent to the State

Brandon Marcus
Brandon Marcus

Brandon Marcus is a writer who has been sharing the written word since a very young age. His interests include sports, history, pop culture, and so much more. When he isn’t writing, he spends his time jogging, drinking coffee, or attempting to read a long book he may never complete.

Filed Under: Personal Finance Tagged With: banking, budgeting, checking account, emergency savings, money management, Personal Finance, saving money

FDIC Changes Reciprocal Deposit Rules for Banks Under New Housing Law

September 2, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FDIC reciprocal deposit rules
The FDIC’s new reciprocal-deposit rule took effect September 1, 2026, increasing the amount qualifying banks can exclude from brokered-deposit treatment under a tiered calculation capped at $30 billion. The rule also expands which well-capitalized institutions can qualify for the exception. nmoyPhoto/Shutterstock

Banks participating in reciprocal deposit networks have new federal rules to follow after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation implemented changes Congress made to how certain deposits are treated under banking regulations. The FDIC’s interim final rule took effect September 1 and implements Section 902 of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which became law on July 11, 2026. The change primarily affects banks and their compliance teams rather than requiring customers to take immediate action. However, reciprocal deposits are an important tool that some banks use to help customers obtain FDIC insurance coverage for deposits exceeding the standard insurance limit at a single institution.

What Are Reciprocal Deposits?

A reciprocal deposit arrangement can allow a customer to place a large amount of money with one participating bank while portions of those funds are placed at other participating insured institutions. In return, the original bank receives deposits placed through the network by other institutions.

The arrangement can allow a customer to maintain a relationship with one bank while potentially receiving FDIC insurance coverage across multiple institutions, subject to applicable insurance rules and program terms. That’s particularly useful for businesses, municipalities and individuals holding deposits that exceed the standard FDIC insurance limit. The regulatory question for banks is whether those reciprocal deposits must be classified as “brokered deposits.” Federal law places additional restrictions and regulatory requirements on brokered deposits, particularly when an institution’s financial condition deteriorates.

The New Law Raises the Reciprocal Deposit Cap

Congress changed the reciprocal-deposit framework when the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law this summer. Under the new law and the FDIC’s implementing rule, qualifying “agent institutions” can exclude a larger amount of reciprocal deposits from being classified as brokered deposits. The new general cap uses a tiered calculation based on an institution’s total liabilities.

For the first $1 billion in liabilities, the calculation uses 50%. For liabilities above $1 billion and up to $10 billion, it adds 40% of that portion. For liabilities exceeding $10 billion, it adds 30% of that portion. The resulting general cap cannot exceed $30 billion.

That replaces the previous framework under which the general cap was generally the lesser of $5 billion or 20% of the institution’s total liabilities.

More Banks May Qualify as “Agent Institutions”

The rule also changes which banks can qualify for the reciprocal-deposit exception. Previously, an institution generally needed to be well capitalized and have a composite condition rating of 1 or 2 under the applicable supervisory rating system, among other potential ways to qualify.

The new law expands the definition to include institutions that are well capitalized and have a composite rating of 3. That change could allow additional institutions to make use of the reciprocal-deposit exception.

The FDIC’s rule also clarifies how institutions can requalify as agent institutions after circumstances change, such as a supervisory rating change, capital-category change, approval of a brokered-deposit waiver or reduction in reciprocal deposits below the applicable special cap.

What Does This Mean for Bank Customers?

For most consumers with ordinary checking and savings balances, the rule doesn’t require any immediate action. Its more direct impact is on financial institutions that participate in reciprocal-deposit networks and on customers with larger balances who use those services. Reciprocal-deposit networks can allow banks to retain relationships with customers whose deposits exceed the standard FDIC insurance limit by placing portions of the money with other participating insured institutions.

Customers shouldn’t assume, however, that simply participating in a reciprocal-deposit program automatically makes every dollar in every situation FDIC-insured. Deposit insurance depends on factors including account ownership category, how funds are placed and the institutions where deposits ultimately reside. Customers with large balances should review their specific arrangement and deposit-insurance coverage with their bank.

The FDIC Is Still Accepting Comments

Although the rule took effect September 1, it is an interim final rule, and the FDIC is requesting public comments. Comments must be received by October 1, 2026. The Federal Register notice says comments should reference RIN 3064-AG32 and can be submitted through the FDIC’s Federal Register publications page, by email or by mail.

The FDIC also says it will work with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council to update bank Call Report instructions to reflect the statutory and regulatory changes.

For financial institutions using reciprocal-deposit networks, the September rule means compliance procedures and deposit classifications may need to be revisited. For ordinary depositors, the more important takeaway is understanding why these networks exist in the first place: they can allow qualifying customers to spread large deposits among multiple insured banks while continuing to work primarily through one institution.

What to Read Next

FDIC Publishes 2026 Risk Review Covering Funding, Interest Rate, and Credit Risks Facing Banks

7 FDIC Coverage Rules Couples Should Recheck Before Opening Trust or Joint Accounts

How Many CDs Can You Have at One Bank? What FDIC Rules Actually Allow

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, banking, banking regulations, Banks, Brokered Deposits, Community Banks, deposit insurance, FDIC, FDIC insurance, Reciprocal Deposits, savings accounts

Federal Agencies Withdraw 2022 Guidance on Special Credit Programs — What Borrowers Should Know

August 26, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

special purpose credit programs
Federal regulators have withdrawn 2022 guidance that encouraged lenders to use special purpose credit programs to expand access to credit. The change does not eliminate all SPCPs, but lenders can no longer rely on the rescinded interagency statement when structuring their programs. Shakirov Albert/Shutterstock

Seven federal agencies have withdrawn a 2022 policy statement that encouraged banks and other creditors to use special purpose credit programs to expand access to financing for underserved groups. The rescission took effect August 25, 2026, and affects guidance involving the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, commonly called ECOA, and its implementing rule, Regulation B.

The change does not eliminate special purpose credit programs altogether. Instead, it removes the agencies’ 2022 interagency statement and comes after a separate 2026 change to Regulation B that narrowed how certain characteristics can be used in these programs.

For consumers, particularly borrowers who have encountered down-payment assistance, mortgage programs, or other lending initiatives aimed at economically disadvantaged groups, understanding that distinction is important.

What the Seven Federal Agencies Changed

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Justice, and Federal Housing Finance Agency jointly rescinded the 2022 “Interagency Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B.” The notice was published in the Federal Register on August 25 as Document No. 2026-17307 and became effective the same day.

The agencies said they took the action to make two points clear: creditors may not discriminate against borrowers based on prohibited characteristics, and lenders should no longer rely on the 2022 statement or related issuances. The OCC separately rescinded its 2022 bulletin that had distributed the earlier interagency guidance to banks it supervises.

Notably, the Federal Reserve participated in the original 2022 statement but is not among the seven agencies listed in the 2026 rescission.

What Are Special Purpose Credit Programs?

Special purpose credit programs, or SPCPs, are not simply a product created by the 2022 guidance. Regulation B itself continues to contain provisions allowing certain qualifying credit programs designed to meet particular needs.

These can include credit-assistance programs expressly authorized by federal or state law for economically disadvantaged groups, qualifying nonprofit programs, and certain programs offered by for-profit organizations to meet special social needs.

The 2022 interagency statement encouraged creditors to explore these programs as a way of increasing credit access for historically disadvantaged people and communities. It also sought to reassure financial institutions that were uncertain about when such programs were permissible under ECOA and Regulation B.

That encouragement has now been withdrawn.

A Separate 2026 Rule Already Changed the Ground Rules

The rescission makes more sense in the context of a significant regulatory change that occurred earlier this year.

On April 22, 2026, the CFPB finalized amendments to Regulation B covering disparate-impact liability, discouragement of applicants and special purpose credit programs. Among other changes, the updated regulation prohibits certain SPCPs from using an applicant’s race, color, national origin or sex as a common characteristic or eligibility factor.

The OCC specifically pointed to that change in explaining the August rescission, noting that the 2022 statement had referenced an earlier version of Regulation B that has since been amended.

That distinction is important because the new announcement should not be interpreted as meaning that every SPCP is now prohibited. Current Regulation B still expressly provides for qualifying special purpose credit programs, subject to the regulation’s requirements.

What This Could Mean for Borrowers

Consumers probably won’t see their existing mortgage, credit card, or other conventional loan suddenly change because of the August 25 announcement. The more immediate impact falls on lenders that operate, design or were considering special purpose credit programs.

Financial institutions now have to evaluate those programs under the current version of Regulation B without relying on the assurances contained in the 2022 interagency statement.

For borrowers, the practical effect could eventually appear in the availability, eligibility criteria, or design of certain targeted lending programs. However, the rescission notice itself does not announce that a particular bank program has been canceled or that a specific group of borrowers will lose access to credit.

Consumers enrolled in an existing program should therefore avoid assuming that the federal announcement automatically terminates their participation. Questions about an individual loan or program are best directed to the lender administering it.

Federal Fair-Lending Protections Still Apply

The withdrawal also does not eliminate ECOA’s broader protections against credit discrimination.

The CFPB’s current Regulation B resources continue to cover consumer credit, business credit, mortgages, refinancing, credit applications, servicing and other lending activities.

The seven agencies emphasized in their rescission that creditors may not discriminate against borrowers based on prohibited characteristics. In other words, this is a change in federal guidance concerning special purpose credit programs, not the repeal of federal fair-lending law.

Borrowers who encounter a change to a special lending program should pay attention to what their lender actually says has changed rather than assuming the August announcement applies identically to every program.

What Happens Next

Banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, and other creditors operating SPCPs will need to review their programs against the amended Regulation B and current federal guidance. The CFPB has also updated its ECOA examination procedures following the April regulatory changes, meaning the new framework is already reflected in federal supervisory materials.

For consumers, there is no universal action required because of the August 25 rescission. Someone currently applying through a special purpose credit program can ask the lender whether eligibility or program terms have changed and whether other assistance programs remain available.

The key takeaway is narrower than the original auto-generated release suggests: the federal government has withdrawn the 2022 guidance encouraging these programs, but special purpose credit programs themselves have not simply disappeared from federal law.

What to Read Next

IRS Proposes New Eligibility Rules for Refundable Payments From 4 Tax Credits

FTC Credit Repair Case Shows Why “Quick Fix” Credit Promises Can Cost Consumers Thousands

FDIC Publishes 2026 Risk Review Covering Funding, Interest Rate, and Credit Risks Facing Banks

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: banking, CFPB, consumer finance, credit, ECOA, FDIC, mortgages, Regulation B, Special Purpose Credit Programs

Chinese National Gets 15 Years in $92 Million Drug Money Laundering Scheme

August 19, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

$92 million money laundering scheme
A federal judge in the Western District of North Carolina sentenced Jianfei Lu to 15 years in prison for his role in a money laundering organization that prosecutors say processed more than $92 million in illicit funds. J. Michael Jones/Shutterstock

A Chinese national has been sentenced to 15 years in federal prison and ordered to forfeit $25 million for his role in a Chinese money laundering organization (CMLO) that processed more than $92 million in illicit funds, including proceeds from illegal drug importation and distribution in the United States, according to an official announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Lu Was Sentenced to 15 Years in Federal Prison

Jianfei Lu, 31, of China, was sentenced in the Western District of North Carolina by U.S. District Judge Susan C. Rodriguez. In July 2025, Lu pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering conspiracy, two counts of money laundering to conceal illicit proceeds, and two counts of monetary transactions involving criminally derived property exceeding $10,000. As part of his guilty plea, Lu admitted to knowingly laundering between $25 million and $65 million in illicit funds and acknowledged that the money included drug trafficking proceeds.

According to court documents, Lu served both as a courier and a manager within the CMLO. As a courier, he personally collected drug trafficking proceeds from U.S.-based drug traffickers and deposited more than $20 million in bulk cash into shell company bank accounts using real and fake identities. As a manager, Lu coordinated directly with drug traffickers, dispatched other couriers to conduct bulk cash pickups and deposits, and procured fraudulent driver’s licenses used by couriers to deposit funds at major U.S. banks.

The Organization Laundered More Than $92 Million

The more than $92 million figure represents funds laundered by the broader organization, not money attributed solely to Lu. As part of his guilty plea, Lu admitted personally being responsible for laundering between $25 million and $65 million in illicit funds. Drug proceeds flowed primarily through networks connected to Mexico, according to the announcement.

The case was investigated by the DEA Charlotte District Office and the IRS Criminal Investigation Charlotte Field Office as part of the Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF), an interagency initiative established under Executive Order 14159. The HSTF is described by DOJ as a whole-of-government effort to investigate and prosecute criminal cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and related activity operating in the United States and abroad.

Prosecution was handled by trial attorneys from the Justice Department’s Criminal Division Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section, along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Western District of North Carolina.

Why the Case Matters for the U.S. Financial System

This case is relevant to consumers and financial institutions because it involves the use of shell company bank accounts and fraudulent identification to move illicit cash through the U.S. banking system. Readers with questions about financial fraud or suspicious account activity should consult the relevant federal agencies, including the DEA, IRS-CI, or the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), for guidance specific to their situation.

What to Read Next

Treasury Proposes New Stablecoin Rules Under GENIUS Act — Here’s Who Could Be Affected

FTC Says Doxo Used Misleading Bill-Payment Ads and Hidden Fees — Company to Pay $2.1 Million

CMS Final Rule Ends Federal Medicaid and CHIP Funding for Certain Gender-Transition Care for Minors

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: banking, DEA, Department of Justice, Drug Trafficking, Federal Court, Financial Crime, IRS Criminal Investigation, Money Laundering, North Carolina, Shell Companies

Treasury Proposes New Stablecoin Rules Under GENIUS Act — Here’s Who Could Be Affected

August 19, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

GENIUS Act stablecoin rules
The U.S. Treasury has proposed regulations implementing GENIUS Act restrictions on who may issue payment stablecoins in the United States, with public comments due October 19, 2026. bluestork/Shutterstock

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking aimed at implementing Section 3 of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which established a comprehensive federal framework for regulating payment stablecoins. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2026, and public comments are due by October 19, 2026.

Treasury Is Implementing the GENIUS Act

According to the official Treasury announcement, the GENIUS Act was enacted on July 18, 2025, and defines a payment stablecoin as a digital asset designed to be used as a means of payment or settlement, where the issuer is obligated to convert, redeem, or repurchase it for a fixed amount of monetary value and represents that it will maintain a stable value. National currencies, federally insured bank deposits, and securities under federal securities laws are explicitly excluded from that definition.

For consumers, stablecoins are digital assets designed to maintain a relatively stable value—often by being tied to the U.S. dollar—rather than fluctuating as dramatically as cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. The proposed regulations focus on who is legally permitted to issue, offer, sell, or otherwise make available payment stablecoins in the United States. Under the GENIUS Act, it is unlawful for any person other than a “permitted payment stablecoin issuer” to issue a payment stablecoin in the U.S. Treasury’s proposal seeks to clarify and implement those statutory prohibitions and limitations.

A permitted payment stablecoin issuer, as defined in the Act, must be a U.S.-formed entity that qualifies as one of three types: a subsidiary of an insured depository institution approved under the Act, a federally qualified payment stablecoin issuer, or a state qualified payment stablecoin issuer. Entities or individuals that knowingly participate in a violation of the issuance prohibition face significant penalties under the Act, including fines of up to $1 million per violation, imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

Treasury also noted that the law is intended to have extraterritorial reach, applying to the offer or sale of payment stablecoins to any person located in the United States, regardless of where the issuer is based.

What the Proposed Stablecoin Rules Could Mean for Consumers

The proposed rules affect a broad range of market participants, including fintech companies, banks exploring digital asset products, and anyone involved in the creation or distribution of stablecoins that could be used for payments. The rulemaking is particularly relevant to consumers who hold or transact in stablecoins, as it would determine which issuers are operating legally under federal law.

Comments may be submitted electronically at regulations.gov or by mail to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of General Counsel, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220. Readers with specific questions about how these proposed rules may apply to their situation should consult the Treasury’s official guidance or a qualified legal or financial professional.

What to Read Next

New York Attorney General Urges Congress to Tighten Cryptocurrency Oversight, Warns Proposed Federal Bill Would Weaken State Enforcement

7 Advisor Red Flags to Watch When Retirement Advice Involves AI or Crypto

Cryptocurrency Owners Are Getting IRS Letters — Even for Small Trades

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: banking, consumer finance, cryptocurrency, digital assets, financial regulation, fintech, GENIUS Act, Stablecoins, U.S. Treasury

FDIC Publishes 2026 Risk Review Covering Funding, Interest Rate, and Credit Risks Facing Banks

July 27, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FDIC 2026 Risk Review
The FDIC’s 2026 Risk Review examines the funding, interest rate, and credit risks that shaped the U.S. banking industry during 2025 while highlighting trends affecting financial institutions and consumers. Tada Images/Shutterstock

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has released its 2026 Risk Review, an annual report examining the most significant risks facing the U.S. banking industry during 2025. The report focuses on three primary areas: funding risk, interest rate risk, and credit risk, providing an overview of how changing economic conditions affected banks throughout the year. According to the FDIC, higher interest rates continued to pressure bank profitability, securities portfolios, funding costs, and liquidity, while credit quality remained an important area of focus across multiple lending sectors. The report also includes an executive summary, market analysis, and supporting reference materials such as a glossary and acronyms guide.

Credit Risks Remain a Major Focus

The FDIC’s review examines credit conditions across six major lending categories: commercial real estate, nondepository financial institution lending, business lending, consumer lending, residential real estate, and agriculture. The agency notes that credit risk remains inherent in all lending activities and can increase when borrowers experience financial stress or economic conditions weaken. The report is intended to help bankers, policymakers, analysts, and consumers better understand trends affecting the financial system and the health of FDIC-insured institutions. Previous editions of the annual Risk Review dating back to 2019 are also available through the FDIC.

Why the Report Matters

While the Risk Review is written primarily for financial professionals, its findings can affect consumers as well. Banking conditions influence everything from deposit rates and loan availability to overall financial stability, making the report a useful resource for anyone following the U.S. banking industry. Readers interested in learning more or reviewing the complete report can access the publication and supporting materials on the FDIC’s website.

What to Read Next

Keeping All Your Cash at One Bank? Here Are 5 Reasons to Reconsider

15 Sneaky Charges on Your Bank Statement That Could Signal Trouble

Before You Shred That Bank Statement, Read This

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: banking, banking industry, Banks, credit risk, economy, FDIC, financial regulation, Financial Stability, funding risk, interest rates

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 10
  • Next Page »

Follow Us

Search this site:

Recent Posts

  • Can My Savings Account Affect My Financial Aid? by Tamila McDonald
  • 12 Ways Gen X’s Views Clash with Millennials… by Tamila McDonald
  • What Advantages and Disadvantages Are There To… by Jacob Sensiba
  • Call 911: Go To the Emergency Room Immediately If… by Stephen Kanaval
  • 7 Weird Things You Can Sell Online by Tamila McDonald
  • 10 Scary Facts About DriveTime by Tamila McDonald
  • How to Avoid NJ Exit Tax by Jacob Sensiba

Copyright © 2026 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework