IBJOpinion

SKARBECK: For numerous banks, times still troubling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Every Friday after the markets have closed, my e-mail starts getting dinged by the FDIC. That is when the government agency publicly announces the names of banks that failed during the past week.

By releasing the names late Friday, the bank’s constituency and the markets have the weekend to digest the news. So far this year, 77 banks have failed.

The messages follow a standard format, in which the FDIC declares it has become receiver of the failed bank and announces a new institution is taking over the bank’s business. The bank’s customers are instructed to continue to conduct their normal banking functions over the weekend, such as writing checks, using ATMs and debit cards, and making loan payments. Clearly, the FDIC wants banking customers and the financial markets to experience as little disruption as possible.

The releases go on to list the total assets and deposits of the failed banks and discuss the basic terms of the purchase between the FDIC and the acquiring institution. They explain the assets being acquired and the deal the acquirer made with the FDIC regarding future loss-sharing on bad assets.

Next, the FDIC gives an estimate of what the failure will cost the Deposit Insurance Fund. The announcement concludes with the updated number of total bank failures for the year and within the particular state where the institution was located.

Troubling regulators today is that, while bank failures are fewer in number than in the last banking crisis in the early 1990s, the banks failing today are in worse shape. The Wall Street Journal reports that, of 102 banks that have failed in the past two years, the cost to the FDIC’s DIF has averaged 34 percent of assets, versus a rate of 24 percent for bank failures between 1989 and 1995, when 747 financial institutions were closed.

At the end of March, the DIF had fallen to $13 billion even while the FDIC’s undisclosed list of troubled institutions numbers more than 300. The DIF is funded by premiums assessed to banks, and in the second quarter of 2009 the agency imposed an emergency fee to raise more than $5 billion.

The DIF took a big hit on Aug. 14, with the failure of Colonial Bank, a regional bank headquartered in Montgomery, Ala., that will cost the fund $2.8 billion—the largest bank failure year-to-date.

As failures have risen, the FDIC has sought to expand buyers for bad banks with the agency in recent months courting private equity funds. However the FDIC’s initial set of proposed guidelines to buy failed banks did not endear the private-equity crowd.

Investor Wilbur Ross called the guidelines “harsh and discriminatory” as one requirement would have a private-equity-owned bank maintain a 15-percent equity-to-assets ratio, or three times higher than the regulatory standard for banks today. There will likely be some compromise on terms since private equity has the capital to buy bad banks, even though critics contend their investment strategies are not well-suited for the fragile banking system.

So, while most large banks avoided an unceremonious demise courtesy of the taxpayer, a number of smaller banks will not be rescued. Their losses will be absorbed by the DIF and deals will be cut with new owners on the “good” assets. And with problems in commercial real estate escalating, I shouldn’t expect any let-up in those Friday e-mails.•

----------

Skarbeck is managing partner of Indianapolis-based Aldebaran Capital LLC, a money management firm. His column appears every other week. Views expressed are his own. He can be reached at 818-7827 or ken@aldebarancapital.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT