The Oldest and Most Trusted Real Estate News Magazine

Unofficial Problem Bank list declines to 670 Institutions

By

This is an unofficial list of Problem Banks compiled only from public sources.

Here is the unofficial problem bank list for October 25, 2013.

Changes and comments from surferdude808:

The FDIC got back to issuing its enforcement action activity for the previous month on the last Friday of the current month. So we got their release today that led to several changes to the Unofficial Problem Bank List. For the week, there were eight removals and one addition that leave the list at 670 institutions with 4.0 billion of assets. A year ago, the list had 856 institutions with assets of 6.4 billion. For the month of October 2013, the list fell by 20 institutions after five additions and 25 removals, which were mostly action terminations. During the month, 24 actions were terminated, which is the second highest monthly count after 25 actions were terminated in April 2012.

Actions were terminated against Old Second National Bank, Aurora, IL (.9 billion Ticker: OSBC); Bank of Idaho, Idaho Falls, ID (5 million); First Enterprise Bank, Oklahoma City, OK (9 million); Foundations Bank, Pewaukee, WI (8 million); Benchmark Bank, Gahanna, OH (3 million); Meramec Valley Bank, Valley Park, MO ( million); State Bank of Georgia, Fayetteville, GA ( million); and Prairie Mountain Bank, Great Falls, MT ( million).

Added this week was The West Michigan Savings Bank, Bangor, MI ( million). In addition, the FDIC issued a Prompt Corrective Action order against First Community Bank of Crawford County, Van Buren, AR ( million), which has been operating under a Consent Order since July 2012.

The FDIC may be forced to finally issue a cross-guaranty claim against Capitol Bancorp, Ltd (Ticker: CBCRQ). Last week, we mentioned the deal struck to sell four units to Talmer Bancorp that is contigent upon the FDIC issuing cross-guaranty waivers. In a report from SNL Securities (Capitol Bancorp creditors balk at ‘entirely inappropriate’ FDIC concessions in 363 sale ), apparently the Creditor’s Committee is balking at a proposed million of sales proceeds being placed in escrow for the FDIC. The Committee believes this payment would be “extraordinary” as the FDIC has not filed a claim in the bankruptcy filing nor has it asserted a cross-guaranty liability on the part of Capitol Bancorp. Thus, for the sale to close, the FDIC may have to issue a cross-guaranty claim in order to receive any sales proceeds.


Calculated Risk

Tags: , , , , ,

Sitemap Madbadcat Graphics