I assume it goes without saying, but this is not legal advice. Speak with an actual lawyer before signing contracts for this magnitude of money. You also skipp

I assume it goes without saying, but this is not legal advice. Speak with an actual lawyer before signing contracts for this magnitude of money. You also skipped out on: > SUBJECT TO OUR REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION IN SECTION 9.3(b), AND EXCEPT AS MAY BE OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW 9.3(b): > If all or part of your deposit at a Destination Institution is uninsured because of our failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 9.3(a), and if the Destination Institution fails and you do not otherwise recover the uninsured portion, we will reimburse you for your documented loss of the uninsured portion that you do not otherwise recover. 9.3(a): > We will maintain, directly or through a Service Provider, appropriate records of our placements for you. We will not place deposits for you through the CD Option at a Destination Institution that is the subject of a theneffective exclusion on your Exclusions List, at a Destination Institution that is the subject of a theneffective rejection by you, or at a Destination Institution under one Depositor Identifier in an amount that exceeds the SMDIA IntraFi is there to solve a specific problem: working around the size limitations of the FDIC. > Note that "theft" is in that list. If they had a "hack", it's not their problem. If that "hack" did not effect their records of your deposits, then it really isn't your problem. They know what money is owed to you and who is holding it. If it does effect their records, they are liable because of their 9.3(a) obligation for maintaining records. If a third party bank is hacked, you are correct that they are excluding themselves from direct liability. They do, however, have evidence that that bank owes you money. If the bank is unable to pay its liabilities (of which you are one), then they are a failed bank, and FDIC kicks in to reimburse you. It is also worth remembering that financial crises thus far have always been economic issues. They have not been the result of the underlying infrastructure powering the financial sector failing. The financial system being "under extreme stress" does not imply that their computer systems are having any problems.