Anatomy of a bank failure
NY Times today profiles a bank regulator who oversaw the takeover of the failing ANB bank in Bentonville. The article touches on the source of the bank's problems and mentions that the FDIC now has some $145 million in properties backed by bad loans for sale on its website.
Mr. Holloway and five colleagues huddled in the bank’s loan office in St. George, Utah. Two-thirds of ANB’s loans had been made in Utah.
“I was the asset manager, and the biggest assets were in Utah,” he said. “They also had offices in Jackson Hole, Wyo., and Idaho Falls, Idaho. So we consolidated them.”
ANB, like other smaller banks, had been eager to grow and had determined that its local northern Arkansas housing market, heavily laced with retirees looking for new leisure homes, was saturated. It moved further west and into construction loans. Those can be among the most treacherous because it takes years to determine if the development is successful, if people will buy the properties and if the bank will be repaid.



Comments
I do not believe that it takes years any longer in a computer driven culture. If people can not comprehend the anture of better and the challenges for improved urban design, layout, then how can one write an article talking about years? People can be enticed into moving into poor developments, but they will not survive because the level of detail was not fleshed out. What is tragic is to watch how cities will give away the urban infrastructure to developers outside of the area only to witness "flaash and dance" replacing the harwork, vlaues and norms that put the facilities in place to begin with. Someday, maybe I will make a difference.
Posted by: Bill
|
August 16, 2008 07:43 AM
Not to worry. The banking capitalists know they can turn to government to bail them out and to communize their losses while they rant and rail against left - wing socialist liberals destroying America.
Posted by: Cato
|
August 16, 2008 08:08 AM
Prepare for more ANBs. The CHAIRMAN, the fellow who sets at the head of the inverted pyramid said so.
No, I won't google it for you. Just keep a sharp eye on your local bank, know all about the ins an outs of holding companies.
We did a little reseach several years ago. We became curious in the Nixon meltdown which extended into the Raygun meltdown of the banking industry and the ensuing consolidation sought by the Feds. Most feel pretty safe having up to $100K insured by FDIC. That's the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. It's financed by member contributions. If worse came to worse and there was really big meltdown, like worthless mortgage instruments being capitalized on a large scale and hence large write-downs of assets, how much could the FDIC cover? That is , what's the boz' "fiduciary rate?" Insurance people, mainly life insurance, know the fiduciary rate for humans because it's a simple 100%, overlooking the Rapture and all.
So, we had no idy of the fiduciary rate for institutions of deposit. Turns out it was one per cent.
That's 1%. Translated if you have $100 bonafide U.S. dollars in a depository institution then there's a reserve of $1 to cover any possible losses due to failures. But, reassuringly, the nice PR lady who delivered the sobering news reminded that an institutions' other assets, like the building, furnishings and machinery (?) would be available to help with any liquidation.
.
Posted by: eLwood
|
August 16, 2008 02:02 PM
The former officers of ANB have at least 2 pending lawsuits against them. One is by a former customer seeking to recover some lost assets. That won't go anywhere. The other is by former employees who had their retirement managed through ANB. Seems there's a law that states retirement accounts must be managed for the good of the retirees. The lawsuit alleges that ANB continued to plow retirement account funds back into the company even after the company's loan officer was removed and investments tanked. Enron anyone?
Posted by: ironfortified
|
August 16, 2008 03:22 PM
Iron
From having a similar experience years ago , I'm not lawyer but I learned a tiny bit, it depends upon how the the former customer's agreement was written and signed.
Anyone's retirement funds should be diversified, never in one account. Of course you don't mention whether the account in question was diversified or not.
All your eggs in one basket is never a good idea, esp not in Bushtimes of regulationFree bidness.
Posted by: eLwood
|
August 16, 2008 03:53 PM
The employees' retirement/pension plan is covered under ERISA. ERISA is one act that pretty much is straight forward about conflict of interest and protecting retirees. The trustees are held to the prudent man standard meaning they must put the interest of retirees ahead of any personal gain. Even after the bank was put under a formal agreement saying the bank was operating under unsafe and unsound practices, the trustees still allowed the purchase of ANB stock. It would be hard to argue that the trustees did not know the bank was not in a good condition.
Posted by: commonsense
|
August 16, 2008 04:42 PM
Commonsense
It's been a long while since I read ERISA so I recall little of it but will take what you write at face value.
I still would not trust any institution with all my retirement funds or have my entire account at one institution. If institutions do break the law as they have at numerous institutions it's nice that executives and trust officers are prosecuted and sometimes are sentenced to jail. But, as I recall there is no bailout plan specified in ERISA. Additionally as I recall ERISA applies mostly to "defined benefit plans" and may not apply to the situation mentioned above if it was simply a type of savings plan.
Posted by: eLwood
|
August 16, 2008 05:10 PM
See link at name.
Posted by: commonsense
|
August 16, 2008 09:20 PM