How do rich people guarantee the safety of their money, when savings exceed the FDIC limit?
They might not have to open accounts at 12 bank because the coverage does allow multiple accounts at one institution if the accounts are joint accounts. It also treats retirement accounts a separate account. The bigger issue is that most millionaires don't have all their money siting in the bank. They invest in stocks, bonds, government bonds, international funds, and their own companies. Most of these carry risk, but they are diversified. They also can afford advisers to help them manage and protect their assets. "Rich people use ""depositor"" banks the same way the rest of us use banks; to keep a relatively small store of wealth for monthly expenses and a savings account for a rainy day. The bulk of a wealthy person's money is in investments. Money sitting in a bank account is not making you more money, and in fact as Kaushik correctly points out, would be losing value to inflation. Now, all investments have risk; that's why interest exists. If, in some alternate universe, charging interest were illegal across the board, nobody would loan money, because there's nothing to be gained and a lot to lose. You have to make it worth my while for me to want to loan you my money, because sure as shootin' you're going to use my loan to make yourself wealthier. A wealthy person will choose a set of investments that represent an overall level of risk that he is comfortable with, much like you or I would do the same with our retirement funds. Early in life, we're willing to take a lot of risk, because there's a lot of money to be made and time to recover from any losses. Closer to retirement, we're much more risk-averse, because if the market takes a sudden downturn, we lose a significant portion of our nest egg with little hope of regaining it before we have to start cashing out. The very wealthy have similar variances in risk, with the significant difference that they are typically already drawing a living from their investments. As such, they already have some risk aversion, but at the same time they need good returns, and so they must pay more attention to this balancing act between risk and return. Managing their investments in effect becomes their new job, once they don't have to work for anyone else anymore. The money does the ""real work"", and they make the executive decisions about where best to put it. The tools they use to make these decisions are the same ones we have; they watch market trends to identify stages of the economic cycle that predicate large movements of money to or from ""safe havens"" like gold and T-debt, they diversify their investments to shield the bulk of their wealth from a sudden localized loss, they hire investment managers to have a second pair of eyes and additional expertise in navigating the market (you or I can do much the same thing by buying shares in managed investment funds, or simply consulting a broker; the difference is that the wealthy get a more personal touch). So what's the difference between the very wealthy and the rest of us? Well first is simple scale. When a person with a net worth in the hundreds of millions makes a phone call or personal visit to the financial institutions handling their money, there's a lot of money on the line in making sure that person is well looked-after. If we get screwed over at the teller window and decide to close our acocunts, the teller can often give us our entire account balance in cash without batting an eyelid. Our multimillionaire is at the lower end of being singlehandedly able to alter his banks' profit/loss statements by his decisions, and so his bank will fight to keep his business. Second is the level of control. The very wealthy, the upper 1%, have more or less direct ownership and control over many of the major means of production in this country; the factories, mines, timber farms, software houses, power plants, recording studios, etc that generate things of value, and therefore new wealth. While the average Joe can buy shares in these things through the open market, their investment is typically a drop in the bucket, and their voice in company decisions equally small. Our decision, therefore, is largely to invest or not to invest. The upper 1%, on the other hand, have controlling interests in their investments, often majority holdings that allow them far more control over the businesses they invest in, who's running them and what they do." I found out there is something called CDARS that allows a person to open a multi-million dollar certificate of deposit account with a single financial institution, who provides FDIC coverage for the entire account.  This financial institution spreads the person's money across multiple banks, so that each bank holds less than $250K and can provide the standard FDIC coverage.  The account holder doesn't have to worry about any of those details as the main financial institution handles everything.  From the account holder's perspective, he/she just has a single account with the main financial institution. Most people who have over $250,000 in liquid cash savings would not want to start putting their money into regular savings accounts in different banks, especially with interest rates as ridiculously low as they are now in 2014-15.  People with money will want to diversify their investments in ways that will potentially earn them more money, and they can also afford to seek the advice of financial planners who can help them do this wisely. Even if you decide to put $250,000 into various accounts at different banks, I wouldn't necessarily trust that the FDIC will be able to help you recover your money in the event that your banks go under.  The amount of money available to the FDIC to cover such losses pales in comparison to the actual amount of money that Americans have in their bank accounts. Even assuming hypothetically that you are able to split money in different bank accounts to get full coverage and all your accounts are in top ranking financial institutions in USA, you can not rely on FDIC if all or most of those banks go broke. Because FDIC just has a meagre 25 billion dollars to cover all bank accounts in the USA. And you know the amount of bank deposits in USA run in at least a trillion of dollars. US Deposits & FDIC Insurance figures The FDIC has been pretty good at recovery lost money from failed banks. The problem is the temporary loss from immediate needs. The best thing for anyone to do is diversify in investments and banks with adequate covered insurance for all accounts. Immediate access to available cash is always a priority that should be governed by the money manager in this case yourself. With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:
To store $1 milion in a bank with full FDIC insurance currently requires 4 separate bank accounts, each at 250k.  It's not that difficult, particularly if you are married and your spouse can have 2 in his/her name.  (This is dependent on the FDIC limit; they raised it to 250k after the 2008 crash). In most cases of fraud, your liability is limited to $50 if you report it within certain number of days (I think 2). After that the liability grows to something like $500. You are covered even if your negligence has caused the breach. In addition VISA guarantees credit cards - in most cases you have 0 liability. Finally checking & savings accounts are FDIC insured up to $250,000 in case the bank goes bankrupt. The $250,000 is a total for all accounts at the given bank. It's up to  you to report and ask for refund though and sometimes you have to jump through hoops to get it but usually it's fairly straightforward and it usually takes only 2 or 3 days. The FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, for each ownership category.  The ownership categories are: You and a spouse could collectively have $750,000 of insured deposits at a single bank if you each had a single account, and a joint account together. "Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead?  Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called ""fractional reserve banking""). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves.  In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee." Remind me again who held and was willing to loan out that debt?  The investor classes partly created the risk environment that they now want protection from. convenient.   If they're going to sit on their savings, they're going to comparatively lose more to inflation, so what you think will happen probably wouldn't happen. And even if they do, savings don't receive preferential tax treatment anyways. In the US, pension benefits promised by employers are tightly regulated by a law called ERISA. One of the requirements is that money be deposited in a trust that is out of the reach of the employer and the employer's creditors, so even if the employer falls on hard times or goes bankrupt, the money to pay the pensions is still there. In addition, the benefits are guaranteed by the federal government through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (usually called the PBGC). Relative to most investments, pensions are a safe bet. You don't mention how much money you are talking about but one option is to use reward checking accounts that are FDIC/NCUA insured. They pay 3-4% interest but generally have a few requirements such as 10-12 debit card transactions and sometimes require direct deposit as well as a limit of 10-50k deposits earning the top rate. http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html  FDIC currently insures up to $250,000.  (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.  If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal.  Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions: And set to get higher. Wait until the super rich start eating the poorer super rich.  We don't even know what the 1% really has because the sample sizes are so small. We do know there's trillions in offshore accounts but we don't know who owns it. I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions.  When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy. "You can store millions of dollars in deposit accounts, you just lose the explicit FDIC guarantee. So you look for rock-solid banks. Bankrate.com has ""Safe and Sound Ratings"" that show the relative strength of various banks. You put your excess deposits in those banks, and you are pretty safe. Note that in addition to the explicit FDIC guarantee, there is now an implicit guarantee that certain institutions have been deemed too ""big to fail"", and will be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, without regard to the capitalization of the bank. Bank of America, for example, is not well capitalized and is carrying billions of dollars of ""assets"" that have little or no value. Yet government policy keeps the bank afloat and your deposits secure. Another strategy is to use municipal money market accounts, which provide secure (but not guaranteed) deposit-like accounts as well as a tax benefit. If you have > $1M in liquid assets, you probably need a financial professional and attorney advising you to make sure that you are aware of  and are controlling for risk in a way consistent with your longer-term goals." I didn't realize that! Thanks for the correction. A bit of google-fu provided this:  &gt;[Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers.](http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/information/fdiciorn.html) "I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is ""no, not true,"" and much of the discussion applies to this question.  The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25.  Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low." None of your options seem mutually exclusive.  Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff.  Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA.  To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great.  If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth.  This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans.  Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%.  Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully.  You kind of need money now.  Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense.  Buy whatever funds you want.  If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX.  You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI.  Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options).  If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important.  Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing.  However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation.  Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical.  More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate.  Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate.  For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better.  Be cold and calculating with your debt.  Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea.  Otherwise it most likely is not.  Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity).  Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth.