posted
Biggest U.S. Bank Failures The latest, IndyMac, will move to No. 3 on the list By Jill Konieczko Posted July 15, 2008 With an estimated $32 billion in assets, IndyMac Bank of Pasadena, Calif., which federal regulators seized Friday, is poised to become the third-largest bank failure in American history. Here is a list of the top 10 failures, based on total assets, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data covering 1934 through 2007.
1. Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust, Chicago (1984) Total assets: $40.0 billion
2. First Republic Bank, Dallas (1988) Total assets: $32.5 billion
3. American S&LA, Stockton, Calif. (1988) Total assets: $30.2 billion
4. Bank of New England, Boston (1991) Total assets: $21.7 billion
5. MCorp, Dallas (1989) Total assets: $18.5 billion
6. Gibraltar Savings, Simi Valley, Calif. (1989) Total assets: $15.1 billion
7. First City Bancorporation, Houston (1988) Total assets: $13.0 billion
8. Homefed Bank, San Diego (1992) Total assets: $12.2 billion
9. Southeast Bank, Miami (1991) Total assets: $11.0 billion
10. Goldome, Buffalo (1991) Total assets: $9.9 billion
Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Bank Failure Facts
According to the FDIC, from 1934 through 2007, there were only two years with no bank failures, 2005 and 2006. The year during that period with the most bank failures was 1989, when 534 banks closed their doors. During the savings-and-loan crisis (1986-95), 2,377 banks failed, representing 67 percent of the 3,559 bank failures from 1934 through May 2008. At the peak of the crisis (1988-1989), 1,004 banks failed, a rate of one failure every 1.38 days. Bank Failures by Decade
By Gail Liberman and Alan Lavine Last update: 7:30 p.m. EST Feb. 4, 2008PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. (MarketWatch) -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is gearing up for the prospect of a large bank failure. So double-check that all your deposits, including interest, are well within FDIC insurance limits. The agency seeks comment by April 14 on a proposed rule designed to help it make a quick insurance determination amid an increasingly complex quagmire of FDIC rules and tough-to-figure-out bank accounts.
Check out Personal Finance
From real estate to retirement, MarketWatch covers the topics that are vital to your pocketbook. Don't miss these recent winners:
Low marks for U.S. health system Home sleepover 'test drives' Lazy Portfolios that beat the bear Nest-egg mistakes to avoid
Get our free PF Daily newsletter
One section would place a provisional hold on a fraction - say, 10% or so -- of certain account balances at some 159 of the nation's largest banks. The hold could affect some accounts with balances under $100,000. If you have uninsured deposits at a bank, should you worry? Possibly. Depositors without FDIC coverage lost money in at least two recent failures -- NetBank, Alpharetta, Ga., and Miami Valley Bank, Lakeview, Ohio. Of $109 million in uninsured deposits at NetBank, nearly 30% has not yet been reimbursed. Of $14 million in uninsured funds at Miami Valley, only 5.9% of uninsured funds, so far, has been reimbursed. All deposits in the most recent failure -- Douglass National Bank, Kansas City, Mo. -- have been reimbursed. Fortunately, FDIC insurance limits have increased on certain accounts in recent years. Certain retirement accounts, for example, now are insured to $250,000, up from $100,000 per person. But the tide on FDIC reimbursement of uninsured depositors may have changed in 1991 for the worse. Congress sharply curtailed the FDIC's discretion to extend protection beyond insured deposits. Now the FDIC must enter into the "least costly" transaction when dealing with a troubled bank. So the FDIC won't reimburse uninsured depositors if it means increasing the loss to the deposit insurance fund. "As a result, uninsured depositors are protected only if a bank acquiring the failed bank will pay more for all of the deposits than it would for insured deposits only," said FDIC spokesman David Barr. By contrast: "Prior to December 1991, the only time that the insurance limit was imposed was when we could not find a buyer for a troubled bank and had to issue checks to depositors for their uninsured funds. The overwhelming majority of the time, we were successful in finding a buyer." Big and bigger Weren't you reassured about our deposit-insurance system with the bailouts of three colossal banks in the past -- Continental Illinois, First Republic and Bank of New England? Each large bank approached an eye-popping $40 billion in assets. Today, however, a bank of that size would not rank in the top 40, FDIC chairman Sheila Bair warned in a speech last year. FDIC data indicate that as of Sept. 30, there were 65 institutions with assets of $18.5 billion on its list of "problem" institutions. Barr would not elaborate on their sizes. Nor will the FDIC name the institutions. Institutional Risk Analytics, Torrance, Calif., based on FDIC data from that same date, puts Bank of America Corp. (BACbank of america corporation com News, chart, profile, more
Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: BAC) , Citigroup Inc. (CCitigroup, Inc News, chart, profile, more
Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: C) , J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co News, chart, profile, more
Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: WB) and HSBC Holdings PLC (HBCHSBC Hldgs Plc News, chart, profile, more
Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio Analyst Create alertInsider Discuss Financials Sponsored by: HBC) , as the riskiest big banks. More recently, Managing Director Chris Whalen cited J.P. Morgan, Citigroup and Bank of America as his chief concerns due to their heavier trading activity. He stresses that there is a 45-day lag time from the close of a quarterly period and the publication of FDIC data. Bank conditions can deteriorate very quickly. Fourth quarter 2007 FDIC data won't be released until late February. Nevertheless, Whalen doubts that even uninsured depositors at those banks need worry. "Uncle Sam is not going to let any of them fail," he declared. Some investors, though, could take "haircuts." Be on guard So what should you do if you deposit large amounts at a bank? Know which deposits are FDIC-insured and which aren't. Make certain you're fully covered by visiting www.fdic.gov and clicking on "Deposit insurance." Allow room for accrued interest and provisional holds. Know the financial strength of your bank. You can search your bank for free at www.bauerfinancial.com. Besides www.institutionalriskanalytics.com, some other sources of bank safety information include www.FEDFIS.com and www.bankrate.com. Consider a service, such as www.cdars.com, which disburses deposits at a number of banks to make sure all are FDIC-insured. Keep good records. Take special care with "sweep" accounts, which move money periodically from one account to another. Determine how FDIC insurance would work with your type of account. The FDIC notes that if funds are swept into a deposit in a foreign branch of the bank, normally those funds are not insured by the FDIC or treated as "deposits" under U.S. law. "A depositor should understand the nature of the sweep transaction, how funds are being changed during the course of the business day and the implications of these changes," Barr says. "Sweep account transactions can have a big impact on a customer's status in the event of failure." Spouses Gail Liberman and Alan Lavine are syndicated columnists. Their latest book is "Quick Steps to Financial Stability" (Que/Penguin). You can contact them at www.moneycouple.com.Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's a sad day for hardworking criminals everywhere, when a bank robber can't even knock off an innocuous IndyMac branch,without finding out it's allready been jacked up by the CEO and CFO.
- hobojaime
Add Comment
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
