And another one down...Bank Crisis Round 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 01-30-2010, 12:33 PM

splitting off from this thread...http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2537712

We're up to 15 bank closures this year to date, we're not into February which is when a this same time last year it hit 6 by Jan 30, 2009. It was 16 by end of Feb.

Remind me again how this is not a scheme of smoke and mirrors with the DOW up and unemployment at 10%.

I still think that the banks are going to keep up the record pace of failure because things like Tishman Stuyvesant Town collapse is still something that is going to continue. The commercial loans still are in place and have the same bubble that hit the consumer market.

Quote:

View: Six more regional banks fail, bringing U.S. tally for 2010 to 15
Source: Marketwatch
posted with the TFP thread generator

Six more regional banks fail, bringing U.S. tally for 2010 to 15
Six more regional banks fail, bringing U.S. tally for 2010 to 15

By John Letzing & Kate Gibson, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- U.S. regulators have closed down another half-dozen banks, including a large one in California, bringing to 15 the count of bank failures already this year, as the credit crisis continued to take its toll.

The closures announced late Friday will cost federal deposit insurance fund nearly $1.9 billion, regulators said, and come in the wake of 140 bank failures in 2009, when the melt down in the real estate market was at its height. There were 25 bank failures in 2008 and only three the prior year.

The latest failures include Los Angeles-based First Regional Bank, which held $1.87 billion in deposits as of Sept. 30, and is expected to cost the federal deposit insurance fund $825.5 million.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. also said it assumed control of Immokalee, Fla.-based Florida Community Bank, which held $795.5 million in deposits as of Sept. 30; First National Bank of Georgia, based in Carrollton, Ga., with $757.9 million in deposits; Marshall Bank of Hallock, Minn., with $54.7 million in deposits; Cornelia, Ga.-based Community Bank & Trust, with $1.11 billion in deposits; and American Marine Bank of Bainbridge Island, Wash., with $308.5 million in deposits.

The FDIC has said that commercial real-estate losses are to blame for most bank failures so far this year. Read story about vulnerability of regional banks.

Baraka_Guru · 01-30-2010, 02:12 PM

I read a story about how the FDIC assumes control of banks. It's actually quite fascinating. It's like a movie, where the FBI task force descends on a criminal operation and seizes control of it in one fell swoop. Well, except it's the FDIC's hired bankers, accountants, lawyers, and auctioneers, and they take over a bank suffering from a financial tsunami.

What was really interesting was how they do it right at closing on Friday so that the bank can reopen again on the Monday, with a new owner and an FDIC greeter to tell customers what went down and how their assets are now safe.

They do it like this to prevent runs and thereby maintaining a reasonable sale price to attract enough buyers to assume the takeover.

You do what you gotta do, I guess. And apparently it happens every week these days.

A real-estate aftershock was expected, and here we are.

Oh, and no scheme, I don't think.... just business as usual on the meltdown cleanup.

ratbastid · 01-30-2010, 02:29 PM

There's been a quiet tickle of small bank closures for over a year. I'd be interested in seeing monthly numbers about it. I suspect it's on the radar now because somebody wrote an article, I'd be surprised if there was actually a real statistical bump happening.

Cynthetiq · 01-30-2010, 02:53 PM

ratbastid, it's not a trickle. I wouldn't call it a flood, but it's definitely not a trickle. I've been following this each and every month for the past few years now. It is what indicators I used to determine what a good time to buy was.

If anyone has money to buy commercial property, this is the year to buy it. I wish that I did.

This article puts together what the total assets and the total deposits.

This link is the FDIC failed bank list.

Quote:

Bank Failure - 2009 Failed Banks | CalculatorPlus.com
The collapse of the housing market, and the increase in mortgage delinquencies and home foreclosures, coupled with the credit crisis have all led to a dramatic increase in bank failures over the past few years. When banks fail, the FDIC is appointed as receiver. Depositors are protected up to the FDIC insurance limit. In most cases, the FDIC arranges for the branches and insured deposits to be transferred to another well capitalized bank, and banking services for the failed bank's customers generally continue uninterrupted.

Since the start of the financial crisis in 2007, there have been 174 bank failures with assets totaling a staggering $549.7 billion and deposits totaling $376.3 billion.

2010 is continuing where 2009 ended, with the FDIC and state regulators closing more banks. Through January 22nd, the FDIC and Bank Regulators closed 6 banks with assets totaling $2.6 billion and at a cost to the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) of $928.5 million.

In 2009, there were 140 bank failures with assets totaling $170.9 billion and at a cost to the FDIC's DIF of $36.43 billion, the five largest bank failures being BankUnited with $12.8 billion in assets, Colonial Bank with $25 billion in assets, Guaranty Bank with $13 billion in assets, United Commercial Bank with $11.2 billion in assets, and AmTrust Bank with $12 billion in assets

In 2008, there were 25 bank failures with assets totaling $373.6 billion. Washington Mutual Bank, which failed Feb 2008 and with assets totaling $307 billion, is by far the largest US bank failure in recent history. Below is a list of bank failures, compiled from the FDIC's failed bank data.

This link shows pretty graphs and numbers.

Calculated Risk: FDIC Bank Failure Update

ASU2003 · 02-04-2010, 09:55 PM

I'm having a hard time figuring out the health of the economy. I could tell that things weren't right in 2007 with the vast real estate speculation going on. But now, I think it is just going back to where it should be. There were a lot of jobs that weren't necessary, there were too many homes being built, and the stock market price of a company doesn't have very much to do with the performance of a company (value of dollar, inflation of prices, overall economy, and people's psychology on the economy had more to do with it)

Craven Morehead · 02-05-2010, 07:12 AM

Well now, this is something I know quite a bit about having worked in a banking related industry my entire career. I sold technology and related services to banks. Sold, being the operative word as I have been unemployed for 11 months because banks in general are really taking a hit and are not spending money on tech.

Early on it was the mortgage bubble that burst that drew the big players in (Washington Mutual and IndyMac). The real estate market tanked and that effected regional banks that had an over abundance of real estate development loans (usually not in their market area). Now, the general recession is rocking main street and commercial lending is in trouble. Ma and pa businesses are shutting down, defaulting on commercial loans and the community bankers are really feeling that one. The number of banks nationwide that are on the FDIC's troubled list is 552 as of Nov. This is up from 416 just last last summer! The list is never made public. I'm sure the number will continue to grow. There's no reason to think they are shrinking. So this is going to take some time to work through. My guess is two to three years, probably closer to three. And that's based on recovery. If the economy continues to falter and sputter, it will only get worse. None of the bank failures cost taxpayers anything. Banks are charged an insurance premium based on the size of their deposits. Since there were so many failures last year and many more predicted, the FDIC required each bank to prepay for the next three years. The fund is now replenished but I strongly doubt that will be enough. I hope so, though.

The FDIC only closes banks on Friday. They can only close 6 at any one time as they only have 6 closing teams. This is up from 4. The actual number of banks might exceed 6 but that is because a group of commonly owned banks were closed. In advance of the closing the FDIC will contact other institutions that have identified themselves as acquirers (obviously on sound financial footing) and will take bids from them for the purchase of the remaining bank. The acquiring bank will buy the property, the deposit accounts and possibly some of the loans. The FDIC usually retains the bad loans. Everything is set up to b consummated on a Friday afternoon giving them time over the weekend to work with vendors and other parties to pull off the change. Its not as simple as changing signage. There are huge technical issues that much be dealt with. But it generally goes fairly smooth as everyone except the failed bank has had time to prepare.

I have a friend at the FDIC who told me last month that the FDIC is presently managing $13 billion is loans from failed institutions. That's a bunch. With the closings they anticipate in 2010 they expect that number to triple!!!! Amazing. Makes me think there are some very big trees yet to fall. I have heard there are banks that have technically failed but are still in operation as the FDIC can only close 6 each week. The FDIC is now selling the loans it is managing. In January it sold a $1 billion package. These are probably sold at a discount. I understand some private equity funds are being set up for this purpose. The vast percentage of these loans are performing. Someone will make money on this. Possibly a lot of money, especially if the economy doesn't get worse.

No one needs to be concerned if you have accounts at a failed bank. Your deposits are insured up the the FDIC limit, presently $250,000. And if you have a loan there, you still have to make your payments. But if you have invested (own stock) in a bank that fails, you lose. You will receive nothing for your investment.

For more information check here FDIC
For a historical list of failed banks and related information check here

Baraka_Guru · 02-05-2010, 07:31 AM

This is all quite mind-boggling to me. It's difficult to get my head around the sheer numbers, and to even speculate at the overall impact this is having on the system.

It's quite the opposite scenario here in Canada, which is a major part of the problem for me. Canada had no bank failures in the Great Depression, and we had no failures in this crisis. Actually, members of the Big 5 banks are looking at record profits.

Quote:

Since 1967 [and the creation of the CDIC, the "Canadian FDIC"], 43 financial institutions have failed in Canada and all 43 were members of CDIC. There have been no failures since 1996.

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know if much of the blame in the U.S. can be pinned on the deregulation orgy of the past couple of decades, but I will say I'm all for balanced regulation of banking as you see it here in Canada.

I guess the question I have is, will the American system move toward this kind of regulation? And will it help prevent future failures such as these?

Craven Morehead · 02-05-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I don't know if much of the blame in the U.S. can be pinned on the deregulation orgy of the past couple of decades, but I will say I'm all for balanced regulation of banking as you see it here in Canada.

I guess the question I have is, will the American system move toward this kind of regulation? And will it help prevent future failures such as these?

Much of the blame can be directed at US lenders making the availability of credit to easy, especially in the housing market. And to a great degree that was supported by the US Gov't. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (both quasi governmental agencies). Fannie and Freddie were one of the first two to fall when the bottom dropped out. Providing mortgages with little or no down payment was the issue. That was exacerbated by inflated property values. Banks wrote the loans, the appraised values exceed the loan amount, the loans were sold off to either Fannie or Freddie who packaged them as investment vehicles that were sold worldwide. The bank that wrote the loan may have received $500 plus closing costs and had no skin in the game after the loan was closed. It was to their advantage to write as many as possible (i.e. approve as many as possible). It was a disaster waiting to happen. And it happened.

Baraka_Guru · 02-05-2010, 08:02 AM

You see, this is what I'm talking about.

I recently went to a bank to inquire about mortgages. The banker plugged in a few numbers related to income, desired mortgage amount, etc., and he discussed with us what was doable.

He explained all the hoops we needed to jump through as borrowers. There were limitations on how much we could borrow, and what was expected of us for a down payment. For example, since our down payment would be below 15%, we would be required to pay for insurance on the mortgage.

He then told us that stuff like this wasn't a requirement of the bank; it was a requirement of the government. It would be illegal for the bank to issue the mortgage otherwise.

Craven Morehead · 02-05-2010, 08:51 AM

There is the Community Reinvestment Act which I believe was enacted in the late 70s to prevent banks from redlining, or not lending within certain areas of their market area (essentially to avoid racial discrimination, if they take deposits there, they better loan, as well). That Act was strengthened in the late 80s or early 90s to make it easier for anyone to obtain a mortgage. That was the beginning of this. Fannie and Freddie got behind it and promoted the hell out of this type of lending. The thought was that everyone has the right to own a home. Property values are ever increasing, right? What could go wrong? Well, in short, everything.

In a sense, it was too much banking regulation that caused the problems in the US, not too little. Bankers, when they had skin in the game and held the mortgage, wouldn't have made any of the 0 -10% down payment loans that were made on inflated appraisals.

Ah ha! Here's a video on what I just posted

I will admit blaming the CRA is a highly political issue. There are other YouTube videos that get much more into that aspect. This one does a pretty good job of presenting the facts. The initial CRA was needed. The subsequent changes in my opinion were dangerous and are the root cause for our present condition.

Baraka_Guru · 02-05-2010, 09:08 AM

More correctly, too much of the wrong kind of regulation. This is why I stated "balanced" regulation. Too much of a wrong thing will spell disaster. You have to get it just right. You can't choke off the banks' ability to make money, but you should also ensure that both lenders and borrowers aren't taking on undue and unmanageable risks. It's about stabilizing the system, not guiding it in any particular direction.

dippin · 02-05-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craven Morehead

There is the Community Reinvestment Act which I believe was enacted in the late 70s to prevent banks from redlining, or not lending within certain areas of their market area (essentially to avoid racial discrimination, if they take deposits there, they better loan, as well). That Act was strengthened in the late 80s or early 90s to make it easier for anyone to obtain a mortgage. That was the beginning of this. Fannie and Freddie got behind it and promoted the hell out of this type of lending. The thought was that everyone has the right to own a home. Property values are ever increasing, right? What could go wrong? Well, in short, everything.

In a sense, it was too much banking regulation that caused the problems in the US, not too little. Bankers, when they had skin in the game and held the mortgage, wouldn't have made any of the 0 -10% down payment loans that were made on inflated appraisals.

Ah ha! Here's a video on what I just posted

I will admit blaming the CRA is a highly political issue. There are other YouTube videos that get much more into that aspect. This one does a pretty good job of presenting the facts. The initial CRA was needed. The subsequent changes in my opinion were dangerous and are the root cause for our present condition.

The CRA is a convenient scape goat but the idea that it caused this collapse is false.

Over half of the so called subprime loans were done by institutions that are in absolutely no way regulated by the CRA. Another 25% were done by institutions that are only partially regulated by the CRA.

And, of all the subprime loans, 60% were extended to middle or high class borrowers. Loans extended by CRA covered institutions to low income borrowers were only 6% of all subprime loans.

Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Nor is this the result of too few regulations. The crisis was generated by a mix of reckless creation of completely unregulated mortgage backed securities and mostly unregulated independent mortgage companies.

Baraka_Guru · 02-06-2010, 09:33 AM

Big Six banks urge Ottawa to tighten mortgage rules - The Globe and Mail

So, yeah, Canada's top six banks are asking the government to tighten the rules on mortgages to slow the housing sector to avoid a "U.S.-style" collapse.

How crazy is that? Six big banks forgoing short-term profits for long-term stability...by requesting regulation reform from the government. That's some kind of weird pseudo-self-regulation. From banks.

See what I mean? It's like a different world up here.

And before you think "chicken feed; it's Canada," bear in mind that our "Big Six" take up the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and 21st positions in asset size of North American banks. Of course, that may have changed since the crisis. They could be ranked higher by now for all I know.

Cynthetiq · 07-23-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Bank failures total more than 100 so far in 2010 - Jul. 23, 2010

Bank failure tally passes 100 for the year
By Ben Rooney, staff reporterJuly 23, 2010: 6:55 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A Minnesota bank was closed by government regulators Friday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said, bringing the total number of failed banks this year past 100.

Community Security Bank of New Prague, Minn., was the 101st in a string of small, regional banks to fail this year. While conditions have improved for many of the nation's largest banks, the lingering effects of the financial crisis continue to take a toll on local lenders across the country.

The FDIC expects the wave of bank failures that started in 2008 to peak sometime this year. Lending activity has picked up in some areas and many troubled firms have found new sources of capital.

FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray said the agency expects the number of failed banks to exceed last year's total of 140, though he added that failures this year will not approach the historic levels seen during the savings and loan crisis. In 1989, a record 534 banks were closed by regulators.

Still, banks have been failing at a rapid pace this year. At this time in 2009, regulators had closed a total of 57 banks.

Analysts expect small banks to remain the most likely to fail. Regional lenders continue to suffer from mounting loan losses, particularly in areas like commercial real estate. Big financial firms, on the other hand, have largely returned to profitability.

Meanwhile, there is evidence to suggest that the banking industry has recovered from the worst of the financial crisis.

The FDIC said in May that the number of firms on its "problem bank list" fell to 775 during the first quarter of this year from 702 in the same period in 2009.

Banks and other institutions insured by the FDIC collectively earned approximately $18 billion during the quarter. That's the highest profit since the first quarter of 2008 and was a more than three-fold increase from a year ago.

As of the first quarter, the fund had a deficit of $20.7 billion. But that's including money the agency has set aside in anticipation of future bank failures. In addition, the fund grew by $145 million during the quarter -- the first increase in two years.

and we crack 100!!!!

Baraka_Guru · 07-23-2010, 07:56 PM

Wow, the hemorrhaging is still taking place? That's nasty. I had no idea it was still going so poorly.

Coincidentally, just today I was musing over the state of affairs here in Canada, as they are discussing yet another rate hike just after one was made on Tuesday:

Quote:

The Bank of Canada raised its key lending rate to 0.75 per cent on Tuesday, and is the only G7 central bank to hike rates since the recession began.

Rates expected to rise despite benign inflation report

Our recent inflation numbers point to a seven-month low, and the Bank of Canada is beginning to move away from stimulus mode.

It's odd, though, considering how dependent our economy is on the American economy. I still don't know how we've remained so robust this whole time comparatively. *Knocks on wood* I guess it's a sign that we're more economically diverse and/or independent than we were traditionally.

01-30-2010, 02:12 PM	#2 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I read a story about how the FDIC assumes control of banks. It's actually quite fascinating. It's like a movie, where the FBI task force descends on a criminal operation and seizes control of it in one fell swoop. Well, except it's the FDIC's hired bankers, accountants, lawyers, and auctioneers, and they take over a bank suffering from a financial tsunami. What was really interesting was how they do it right at closing on Friday so that the bank can reopen again on the Monday, with a new owner and an FDIC greeter to tell customers what went down and how their assets are now safe. They do it like this to prevent runs and thereby maintaining a reasonable sale price to attract enough buyers to assume the takeover. You do what you gotta do, I guess. And apparently it happens every week these days. A real-estate aftershock was expected, and here we are. Oh, and no scheme, I don't think.... just business as usual on the meltdown cleanup. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 01-30-2010 at 02:32 PM..

02-05-2010, 08:02 AM	#9 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	You see, this is what I'm talking about. I recently went to a bank to inquire about mortgages. The banker plugged in a few numbers related to income, desired mortgage amount, etc., and he discussed with us what was doable. He explained all the hoops we needed to jump through as borrowers. There were limitations on how much we could borrow, and what was expected of us for a down payment. For example, since our down payment would be below 15%, we would be required to pay for insurance on the mortgage. He then told us that stuff like this wasn't a requirement of the bank; it was a requirement of the government. It would be illegal for the bank to issue the mortgage otherwise. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-05-2010, 08:51 AM	#10 (permalink)
Craven Morehead Custom User Title	There is the Community Reinvestment Act which I believe was enacted in the late 70s to prevent banks from redlining, or not lending within certain areas of their market area (essentially to avoid racial discrimination, if they take deposits there, they better loan, as well). That Act was strengthened in the late 80s or early 90s to make it easier for anyone to obtain a mortgage. That was the beginning of this. Fannie and Freddie got behind it and promoted the hell out of this type of lending. The thought was that everyone has the right to own a home. Property values are ever increasing, right? What could go wrong? Well, in short, everything. In a sense, it was too much banking regulation that caused the problems in the US, not too little. Bankers, when they had skin in the game and held the mortgage, wouldn't have made any of the 0 -10% down payment loans that were made on inflated appraisals. Ah ha! Here's a video on what I just posted I will admit blaming the CRA is a highly political issue. There are other YouTube videos that get much more into that aspect. This one does a pretty good job of presenting the facts. The initial CRA was needed. The subsequent changes in my opinion were dangerous and are the root cause for our present condition. Last edited by Craven Morehead; 02-05-2010 at 08:59 AM..

02-05-2010, 09:08 AM	#11 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	More correctly, too much of the wrong kind of regulation. This is why I stated "balanced" regulation. Too much of a wrong thing will spell disaster. You have to get it just right. You can't choke off the banks' ability to make money, but you should also ensure that both lenders and borrowers aren't taking on undue and unmanageable risks. It's about stabilizing the system, not guiding it in any particular direction. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-06-2010, 09:33 AM	#13 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Big Six banks urge Ottawa to tighten mortgage rules - The Globe and Mail So, yeah, Canada's top six banks are asking the government to tighten the rules on mortgages to slow the housing sector to avoid a "U.S.-style" collapse. How crazy is that? Six big banks forgoing short-term profits for long-term stability...by requesting regulation reform from the government. That's some kind of weird pseudo-self-regulation. From banks. See what I mean? It's like a different world up here. And before you think "chicken feed; it's Canada," bear in mind that our "Big Six" take up the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and 21st positions in asset size of North American banks. Of course, that may have changed since the crisis. They could be ranked higher by now for all I know. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 02-06-2010 at 09:39 AM..

01-30-2010, 02:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	There's been a quiet tickle of small bank closures for over a year. I'd be interested in seeing monthly numbers about it. I suspect it's on the radar now because somebody wrote an article, I'd be surprised if there was actually a real statistical bump happening.

02-04-2010, 09:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I'm having a hard time figuring out the health of the economy. I could tell that things weren't right in 2007 with the vast real estate speculation going on. But now, I think it is just going back to where it should be. There were a lot of jobs that weren't necessary, there were too many homes being built, and the stock market price of a company doesn't have very much to do with the performance of a company (value of dollar, inflation of prices, overall economy, and people's psychology on the economy had more to do with it)

02-05-2010, 07:12 AM	#6 (permalink)
Craven Morehead Custom User Title	Well now, this is something I know quite a bit about having worked in a banking related industry my entire career. I sold technology and related services to banks. Sold, being the operative word as I have been unemployed for 11 months because banks in general are really taking a hit and are not spending money on tech. Early on it was the mortgage bubble that burst that drew the big players in (Washington Mutual and IndyMac). The real estate market tanked and that effected regional banks that had an over abundance of real estate development loans (usually not in their market area). Now, the general recession is rocking main street and commercial lending is in trouble. Ma and pa businesses are shutting down, defaulting on commercial loans and the community bankers are really feeling that one. The number of banks nationwide that are on the FDIC's troubled list is 552 as of Nov. This is up from 416 just last last summer! The list is never made public. I'm sure the number will continue to grow. There's no reason to think they are shrinking. So this is going to take some time to work through. My guess is two to three years, probably closer to three. And that's based on recovery. If the economy continues to falter and sputter, it will only get worse. None of the bank failures cost taxpayers anything. Banks are charged an insurance premium based on the size of their deposits. Since there were so many failures last year and many more predicted, the FDIC required each bank to prepay for the next three years. The fund is now replenished but I strongly doubt that will be enough. I hope so, though. The FDIC only closes banks on Friday. They can only close 6 at any one time as they only have 6 closing teams. This is up from 4. The actual number of banks might exceed 6 but that is because a group of commonly owned banks were closed. In advance of the closing the FDIC will contact other institutions that have identified themselves as acquirers (obviously on sound financial footing) and will take bids from them for the purchase of the remaining bank. The acquiring bank will buy the property, the deposit accounts and possibly some of the loans. The FDIC usually retains the bad loans. Everything is set up to b consummated on a Friday afternoon giving them time over the weekend to work with vendors and other parties to pull off the change. Its not as simple as changing signage. There are huge technical issues that much be dealt with. But it generally goes fairly smooth as everyone except the failed bank has had time to prepare. I have a friend at the FDIC who told me last month that the FDIC is presently managing $13 billion is loans from failed institutions. That's a bunch. With the closings they anticipate in 2010 they expect that number to triple!!!! Amazing. Makes me think there are some very big trees yet to fall. I have heard there are banks that have technically failed but are still in operation as the FDIC can only close 6 each week. The FDIC is now selling the loans it is managing. In January it sold a $1 billion package. These are probably sold at a discount. I understand some private equity funds are being set up for this purpose. The vast percentage of these loans are performing. Someone will make money on this. Possibly a lot of money, especially if the economy doesn't get worse. No one needs to be concerned if you have accounts at a failed bank. Your deposits are insured up the the FDIC limit, presently $250,000. And if you have a loan there, you still have to make your payments. But if you have invested (own stock) in a bank that fails, you lose. You will receive nothing for your investment. For more information check here FDIC For a historical list of failed banks and related information check here