The New York Times writes "Not All Certificates of Deposit Are Plain Vanilla -- or Safe", which discusses the Robert Stanford case and his sale of "about $8 billion of suspiciously high-yielding C.D.'s through Stanford International Bank." The article says, "These C.D.'s were not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. So once again, we're faced with images of forlorn people trying and failing to extract their life savings. There's some question as to whether Stanford ought to have been using the phrase 'certificate of deposit.' Most investors who hear 'C.D.' immediately assume that it's safe. Faulty terminology or not, it's a bad time for C.D.'s to get a black eye, given that growing numbers of people are looking for secure investments as stocks approach their bear market lows." Also, see Bloomberg's "Stanford Lured Clients With 'No Worry' Promise, Rates" and WSJ's "Will Queasy Money Return?".
