Odd behavior at Old National

April 8, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lots of big news is swirling in banking circles these days, including what might become of financially challenged National City Bank.

But a small piece of unusual news that unfolded yesterday is generating about as much talk locally.

Old National Bancorp announced that a former loan officer in Indianapolis had forged loan documents. But the bank doesnâ??t seem to know why the officer did it.

No money was skimmed. The borrowers were legitimate businesses that had sought the loans and presumably would have been given their money without the need for forged signatures.

Whatâ??s more, the borrowers didnâ??t even know the signatures had been forged.

Maybe an FBI investigation that started recently will turn up more.

Old National isnâ??t releasing the name of the employee, who was fired, but CEO Bob Jones says heâ??s utterly mystified about what might have motivated the officer to engage in misconduct.

What do you think?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • As the saying goes, Follow the money. Today's corporate world is full of greed. While the ONB situation is apparently all about an individual motivated by greed of some sort, the people at the helm at National City should be held accountable for the decisions they made to turn a mighty banking power into a piece of rubble. When they sell, who stands to make the most from the disaster? Those at the top who should share the spoils of their dastardly deeds (leaving them with even greater losses in their portfolios) with their minions that will undoubtedly lose their jobs with little to show for all the hard work they've done over the years.

    Let us hope that the FBI uncovers the true intent. Surely, it's all about the money.
  • Follow the money...ONB concurrently announced a $17 million reserve for bad loans and a reduction in anticipated EPS. This looks and sounds like a cover-up of something else that was mismanaged. This was a convenient excuse for a write-off.

Post a comment to this blog

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
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT