F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 127

The FDIC’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan provide the basis for annual planning and budgeting for needed resources. The 2008 aggregate budget (for corporate, receivership and investment spending)

was $1.25 billion, while actual expenditures for the year were $1.23 billion, about $217 million more than

2007 expenditures.

Over the past ten years, the FDIC’s expenditures have varied in response to workload. During the past

decade, expenditures generally declined due to decreasing resolution and receivership activity. Total

expenditures increased in 2002 and 2008 due to an increase in receivership-related expenses.

6 CHAPTER SIX

APPENDICES

A. Key Statistics

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

$1,400

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

FDIC RTC

FDIC EXPENDITURES 1998-2008

Dollars in millions
128 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Dollars in MIllions

Deposits in Insured

Institutions

Insurance Fund as a

Percentage of

Year

Insurance

Coverage2

Total

Domestic

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits3

Percentage

of Insured

Deposits

Deposit

Insurance

Fund

Total

Domestic

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

2008 $100,000 $7,505,360 $4,756,809 63.4 $17,276.3 0.23 0.36

2007 100,000 6,921,686 4,292,163 62.0 52,413.0 0.76 1.22

2006 100,000 6,640,105 4,153,786 62.6 50,165.3 0.76 1.21

2005 100,000 6,229,764 3,890,941 62.5 48,596.6 0.78 1.25

2004 100,000 5,724,621 3,622,059 63.3 47,506.8 0.83 1.31

2003 100,000 5,223,922 3,452,497 66.1 46,022.3 0.88 1.33

2002 100,000 4,916,078 3,383,598 68.8 43,797.0 0.89 1.29

2001 100,000 4,564,064 3,215,581 70.5 41,373.8 0.91 1.29

2000 100,000 4,211,895 3,055,108 72.5 41,733.8 0.99 1.37

1999 100,000 3,885,826 2,869,208 73.8 39,694.9 1.02 1.38

1998 100,000 3,817,150 2,850,452 74.7 39,452.1 1.03 1.38

1997 100,000 3,602,189 2,746,477 76.2 37,660.8 1.05 1.37

1996 100,000 3,454,556 2,690,439 77.9 35,742.8 1.03 1.33

1995 100,000 3,318,595 2,663,873 80.3 28,811.5 0.87 1.08

1994 100,000 3,184,410 2,588,619 81.3 23,784.5 0.75 0.92

1993 100,000 3,220,302 2,602,781 80.8 14,277.3 0.44 0.55

1992 100,000 3,275,530 2,677,709 81.7 178.4 0.01 0.01

1991 100,000 3,331,312 2,733,387 82.1 (6,934.0) (0.21) (0.25)

1990 100,000 3,415,464 2,784,838 81.5 4,062.7 0.12 0.15

1989 100,000 3,412,503 2,755,471 80.7 13,209.5 0.39 0.48

1988 100,000 2,337,080 1,756,771 75.2 14,061.1 0.60 0.80

1987 100,000 2,198,648 1,657,291 75.4 18,301.8 0.83 1.10

1986 100,000 2,162,687 1,636,915 75.7 18,253.3 0.84 1.12

1985 100,000 1,975,030 1,510,496 76.5 17,956.9 0.91 1.19

1984 100,000 1,805,334 1,393,421 77.2 16,529.4 0.92 1.19

1983 100,000 1,690,576 1,268,332 75.0 15,429.1 0.91 1.22

1982 100,000 1,544,697 1,134,221 73.4 13,770.9 0.89 1.21

1981 100,000 1,409,322 988,898 70.2 12,246.1 0.87 1.24

1980 100,000 1,324,463 948,717 71.6 11,019.5 0.83 1.16

ESTIMATED INSURED DEPOSITS AND THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND,

DECEMBER 31, 1934, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 20081
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 129

C6 ( DCS

ESTIMATED INSURED DEPOSITS AND THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND,

DECEMBER 31, 1934, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 20081 (continued)

Dollars in MIllions

Deposits in Insured

Institutions

Insurance Fund as a

Percentage of

Year

Insurance

Coverage2

Total

Domestic

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits3

Percentage

of Insured

Deposits

Deposit

Insurance

Fund

Total

Domestic

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

1979 40,000 1,226,943 808,555 65.9 9,792.7 0.80 1.21

1978 40,000 1,145,835 760,706 66.4 8,796.0 0.77 1.16

1977 40,000 1,050,435 692,533 65.9 7,992.8 0.76 1.15

1976 40,000 941,923 628,263 66.7 7,268.8 0.77 1.16

1975 40,000 875,985 569,101 65.0 6,716.0 0.77 1.18

1974 40,000 833,277 520,309 62.4 6,124.2 0.73 1.18

1973 20,000 766,509 465,600 60.7 5,615.3 0.73 1.21

1972 20,000 697,480 419,756 60.2 5,158.7 0.74 1.23

1971 20,000 610,685 374,568 61.3 4,739.9 0.78 1.27

1970 20,000 545,198 349,581 64.1 4,379.6 0.80 1.25

1969 20,000 495,858 313,085 63.1 4,051.1 0.82 1.29

1968 15,000 491,513 296,701 60.4 3,749.2 0.76 1.26

1967 15,000 448,709 261,149 58.2 3,485.5 0.78 1.33

1966 15,000 401,096 234,150 58.4 3,252.0 0.81 1.39

1965 10,000 377,400 209,690 55.6 3,036.3 0.80 1.45

1964 10,000 348,981 191,787 55.0 2,844.7 0.82 1.48

1963 10,000 313,304 177,381 56.6 2,667.9 0.85 1.50

1962 10,000 297,548 170,210 57.2 2,502.0 0.84 1.47

1961 10,000 281,304 160,309 57.0 2,353.8 0.84 1.47

1960 10,000 260,495 149,684 57.5 2,222.2 0.85 1.48

1959 10,000 247,589 142,131 57.4 2,089.8 0.84 1.47

1958 10,000 242,445 137,698 56.8 1,965.4 0.81 1.43

1957 10,000 225,507 127,055 56.3 1,850.5 0.82 1.46

1956 10,000 219,393 121,008 55.2 1,742.1 0.79 1.44

1955 10,000 212,226 116,380 54.8 1,639.6 0.77 1.41

1954 10,000 203,195 110,973 54.6 1,542.7 0.76 1.39

1953 10,000 193,466 105,610 54.6 1,450.7 0.75 1.37

1952 10,000 188,142 101,841 54.1 1,363.5 0.72 1.34

1951 10,000 178,540 96,713 54.2 1,282.2 0.72 1.33

1950 10,000 167,818 91,359 54.4 1,243.9 0.74 1.36

1949 5,000 156,786 76,589 48.8 1,203.9 0.77 1.57

1948 5,000 153,454 75,320 49.1 1,065.9 0.69 1.42

1947 5,000 154,096 76,254 49.5 1,006.1 0.65 1.32
130 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

ESTIMATED INSURED DEPOSITS AND THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND,

DECEMBER 31, 1934, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 20081 (continued)

Dollars in MIllions

Deposits in Insured

Institutions

Insurance Fund as a

Percentage of

Year

Insurance

Coverage2

Total

Domestic

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits3

Percentage

of Insured

Deposits

Deposit

Insurance

Fund

Total

Domestic

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

1946 5,000 148,458 73,759 49.7 1,058.5 0.71 1.44

1945 5,000 157,174 67,021 42.6 929.2 0.59 1.39

1944 5,000 134,662 56,398 41.9 804.3 0.60 1.43

1943 5,000 111,650 48,440 43.4 703.1 0.63 1.45

1942 5,000 89,869 32,837 36.5 616.9 0.69 1.88

1941 5,000 71,209 28,249 39.7 553.5 0.78 1.96

1940 5,000 65,288 26,638 40.8 496.0 0.76 1.86

1939 5,000 57,485 24,650 42.9 452.7 0.79 1.84

1938 5,000 50,791 23,121 45.5 420.5 0.83 1.82

1937 5,000 48,228 22,557 46.8 383.1 0.79 1.70

1936 5,000 50,281 22,330 44.4 343.4 0.68 1.54

1935 5,000 45,125 20,158 44.7 306.0 0.68 1.52

1934 5,000 40,060 18,075 45.1 291.7 0.73 1.61

1 Prior to 1989, figures are for BIF only and exclude insured branches of foreign banks. For 1989 to 2005, figures represent sum of BIF and SAIF amounts;

for 2006 to 2008, figures are for DIF. Amounts from 1989 - 2008 include insured branches of foreign banks.

2 Coverage for certain retirement accounts increased to $250,000 in 2006. Coverage limits do not reflect temporary increases authorized by the

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Initial coverage limit was $2,500 from January 1 to June 30, 1934.

3 Prior to year-end 1991, insured deposits were estimated using percentages determined from June Call and Thrift Financial reports.
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 131

C6 ( DCS

Income Expenses and Losses

Year Total

Assessment

Income

Assessment

Credits

Investment and

Other

Sources

Effective

Assessment

Rate1 Total

Provision

for

Losses

Admin.

and Oper.

Expenses2

Interest &

Other Ins.

Expenses

Funding

Transfer

from the

FSLIC

Resolution Fund

Net

Income

(Loss)

Total $117,690.2 $70,403.2 $11,243.0 $59,118.8 $103,555.5 $78,030.6 $16,867.8 $8,663.1 $139.5 $14,274.2

2008 7,306.3 4,410.4 1,445.9 4,341.8 0.0418% 44,339.5 41,838.8 1,033.5 1,467.2 0 (37,033.2)

2007 3,196.2 3,730.9 3,088.0 2,553.3 0.0093% 1,090.9 95.0 992.6 3.3 0 2,105.3

2006 2,643.5 31.9 0.0 2,611.6 0.0005% 904.3 (52.1) 950.6 5.8 0 1,739.2

2005 2,420.5 60.9 0.0 2,359.6 0.0010% 809.3 (160.2) 965.7 3.8 0 1,611.2

2004 2,240.3 104.2 0.0 2,136.1 0.0019% 607.6 (353.4) 941.3 19.7 0 1,632.7

2003 2,173.6 94.8 0.0 2,078.8 0.0019% (67.7) (1,010.5) 935.5 7.3 0 2,241.3

2002 1,795.9 107.8 0.0 2,276.9 0.0023% 719.6 (243.0) 945.1 17.5 0 1,076.3

2001 2,730.1 83.2 0.0 2,646.9 0.0019% 3,123.4 2,199.3 887.9 36.2 0 (393.3)

2000 2,570.1 64.3 0.0 2,505.8 0.0016% 945.2 28.0 883.9 33.3 0 1,624.9

1999 2,416.7 48.4 0.0 2,368.3 0.0013% 2,047.0 1,199.7 823.4 23.9 0 369.7

1998 2,584.6 37.0 0.0 2,547.6 0.0010% 817.5 (5.7) 782.6 40.6 0 1,767.1

1997 2,165.5 38.6 0.0 2,126.9 0.0011% 247.3 (505.7) 677.2 75.8 0 1,918.2

1996 7,156.8 5,294.2 0.0 1,862.6 0.1622% 353.6 (417.2) 568.3 202.5 0 6,803.2

1995 5,229.2 3,877.0 0.0 1,352.2 0.1238% 202.2 (354.2) 510.6 45.8 0 5,027.0

1994 7,682.1 6,722.7 0.0 959.4 0.2192% (1,825.1) (2,459.4) 443.2 191.1 0 9,507.2

1993 7,354.5 6,682.0 0.0 672.5 0.2157% (6,744.4) (7,660.4) 418.5 497.5 0 14,098.9

1992 6,479.3 5,758.6 0.0 720.7 0.1815% (596.8) (2,274.7) 614.83 1,063.1 35.4 7,111.5

1991 5,886.5 5,254.0 0.0 632.5 0.1613% 16,925.3 15,496.2 326.1 1,103.0 42.4 (10,996.4)

1990 3,855.3 2,872.3 0.0 983.0 0.0868% 13,059.3 12,133.1 275.6 650.6 56.1 (9,147.9)

1989 3,496.6 1,885.0 0.0 1,611.6 0.0816% 4,352.2 3,811.3 219.9 321.0 5.6 (850.0)

1988 3,347.7 1,773.0 0.0 1,574.7 0.0825% 7,588.4 6,298.3 223.9 1,066.2 0 (4,240.7)

1987 3,319.4 1,696.0 0.0 1,623.4 0.0833% 3,270.9 2,996.9 204.9 69.1 0 48.5

1986 3,260.1 1,516.9 0.0 1,743.2 0.0787% 2,963.7 2,827.7 180.3 (44.3) 0 296.4

1985 3,385.5 1,433.5 0.0 1,952.0 0.0815% 1,957.9 1,569.0 179.2 209.7 0 1,427.6

1984 3,099.5 1,321.5 0.0 1,778.0 0.0800% 1,999.2 1,633.4 151.2 214.6 0 1,100.3

1983 2,628.1 1,214.9 164.0 1,577.2 0.0714% 969.9 675.1 135.7 159.1 0 1,658.2

1982 2,524.6 1,108.9 96.2 1,511.9 0.0769% 999.8 126.4 129.9 743.5 0 1,524.8

1981 2,074.7 1,039.0 117.1 1,152.8 0.0714% 848.1 320.4 127.2 400.5 0 1,226.6

1980 1,310.4 951.9 521.1 879.6 0.0370% 83.6 (38.1) 118.2 3.5 0 1,226.8

INCOME AND EXPENSES, DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, FROM BEGINNING OF

OPERATIONS, SEPTEMBER 11, 1933, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008

Dollars in Millions
132 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Income Expenses and Losses

Year Total

Assessment

Income

Assessment

Credits

Investment and

Other

Sources

Effective

Assessment

Rate1 Total

Provision

for

Losses

Admin.

and Oper.

Expenses2

Interest &

Other Ins.

Expenses

Funding

Transfer

from the

FSLIC

Resolution Fund

Net

Income

(Loss)

1979 1,090.4 881.0 524.6 734.0 0.0333% 93.7 (17.2) 106.8 4.1 0 996.7

1978 952.1 810.1 443.1 585.1 0.0385% 148.9 36.5 103.3 9.1 0 803.2

1977 837.8 731.3 411.9 518.4 0.0370% 113.6 20.8 89.3 3.5 0 724.2

1976 764.9 676.1 379.6 468.4 0.0370% 212.3 28.0 180.44 3.9 0 552.6

1975 689.3 641.3 362.4 410.4 0.0357% 97.5 27.6 67.7 2.2 0 591.8

1974 668.1 587.4 285.4 366.1 0.0435% 159.2 97.9 59.2 2.1 0 508.9

1973 561.0 529.4 283.4 315.0 0.0385% 108.2 52.5 54.4 1.3 0 452.8

1972 467.0 468.8 280.3 278.5 0.0333% 59.7 10.1 49.6 6.05 0 407.3

1971 415.3 417.2 241.4 239.5 0.0345% 60.3 13.4 46.9 0.0 0 355.0

1970 382.7 369.3 210.0 223.4 0.0357% 46.0 3.8 42.2 0.0 0 336.7

1969 335.8 364.2 220.2 191.8 0.0333% 34.5 1.0 33.5 0.0 0 301.3

1968 295.0 334.5 202.1 162.6 0.0333% 29.1 0.1 29.0 0.0 0 265.9

1967 263.0 303.1 182.4 142.3 0.0333% 27.3 2.9 24.4 0.0 0 235.7

1966 241.0 284.3 172.6 129.3 0.0323% 19.9 0.1 19.8 0.0 0 221.1

1965 214.6 260.5 158.3 112.4 0.0323% 22.9 5.2 17.7 0.0 0 191.7

1964 197.1 238.2 145.2 104.1 0.0323% 18.4 2.9 15.5 0.0 0 178.7

1963 181.9 220.6 136.4 97.7 0.0313% 15.1 0.7 14.4 0.0 0 166.8

1962 161.1 203.4 126.9 84.6 0.0313% 13.8 0.1 13.7 0.0 0 147.3

1961 147.3 188.9 115.5 73.9 0.0323% 14.8 1.6 13.2 0.0 0 132.5

1960 144.6 180.4 100.8 65.0 0.0370% 12.5 0.1 12.4 0.0 0 132.1

1959 136.5 178.2 99.6 57.9 0.0370% 12.1 0.2 11.9 0.0 0 124.4

1958 126.8 166.8 93.0 53.0 0.0370% 11.6 0.0 11.6 0.0 0 115.2

1957 117.3 159.3 90.2 48.2 0.0357% 9.7 0.1 9.6 0.0 0 107.6

1956 111.9 155.5 87.3 43.7 0.0370% 9.4 0.3 9.1 0.0 0 102.5

1955 105.8 151.5 85.4 39.7 0.0370% 9.0 0.3 8.7 0.0 0 96.8

1954 99.7 144.2 81.8 37.3 0.0357% 7.8 0.1 7.7 0.0 0 91.9

1953 94.2 138.7 78.5 34.0 0.0357% 7.3 0.1 7.2 0.0 0 86.9

1952 88.6 131.0 73.7 31.3 0.0370% 7.8 0.8 7.0 0.0 0 80.8

1951 83.5 124.3 70.0 29.2 0.0370% 6.6 0.0 6.6 0.0 0 76.9

1950 84.8 122.9 68.7 30.6 0.0370% 7.8 1.4 6.4 0.0 0 77.0

INCOME AND EXPENSES, DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, FROM BEGINNING OF OPERATIONS,

SEPTEMBER 11, 1933, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008 (continued)

Dollars in Millions
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 133

C6 ( DCS

Income Expenses and Losses

Year Total

Assessment

Income

Assessment

Credits

Investment and

Other

Sources

Effective

Assessment

Rate1 Total

Provision

for

Losses

Admin.

and Oper.

Expenses2

Interest &

Other Ins.

Expenses

Funding

Transfer

from the

FSLIC

Resolution Fund

Net

Income

(Loss)

1949 151.1 122.7 0.0 28.4 0.0833% 6.4 0.3 6.1 0.0 0 144.7

1948 145.6 119.3 0.0 26.3 0.0833% 7.0 0.7 6.36 0.0 0 138.6

1947 157.5 114.4 0.0 43.1 0.0833% 9.9 0.1 9.8 0.0 0 147.6

1946 130.7 107.0 0.0 23.7 0.0833% 10.0 0.1 9.9 0.0 0 120.7

1945 121.0 93.7 0.0 27.3 0.0833% 9.4 0.1 9.3 0.0 0 111.6

1944 99.3 80.9 0.0 18.4 0.0833% 9.3 0.1 9.2 0.0 0 90.0

1943 86.6 70.0 0.0 16.6 0.0833% 9.8 0.2 9.6 0.0 0 76.8

1942 69.1 56.5 0.0 12.6 0.0833% 10.1 0.5 9.6 0.0 0 59.0

1941 62.0 51.4 0.0 10.6 0.0833% 10.1 0.6 9.5 0.0 0 51.9

1940 55.9 46.2 0.0 9.7 0.0833% 12.9 3.5 9.4 0.0 0 43.0

1939 51.2 40.7 0.0 10.5 0.0833% 16.4 7.2 9.2 0.0 0 34.8

1938 47.7 38.3 0.0 9.4 0.0833% 11.3 2.5 8.8 0.0 0 36.4

1937 48.2 38.8 0.0 9.4 0.0833% 12.2 3.7 8.5 0.0 0 36.0

1936 43.8 35.6 0.0 8.2 0.0833% 10.9 2.6 8.3 0.0 0 32.9

1935 20.8 11.5 0.0 9.3 0.0833% 11.3 2.8 8.5 0.0 0 9.5

1933

-34 7.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 N/A 10.0 0.2 9.8 0.0 0 (3.0)

1 Figures represent only BIF insured institutions prior to 1990, BIF and SAIF insured institutions from 1990 through 2005, and DIF insured institutions beginning in

2006. After 1995, all thrift closings became the responsibility of the FDIC and amounts are reflected in the SAIF. The effective assessment rate is calculated from

annual assessment income (net of assessment credits) excluding transfers to the Financing Corporation (FICO), Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP) and

the FSLIC Resolution Fund, divided by the four quarter average assessment base. The effective rates from 1950 through 1984 varied from the statutory rate of

0.0833 percent due to assessment credits provided in those years. The statutory rate increased to 0.12 percent in 1990 and to a minimum of 0.15 percent in 1991.

The effective rates in 1991 and 1992 varied because the FDIC exercised new authority to increase assessments above the statutory minimum rate when needed.

Beginning in 1993, the effective rate was based on a risk-related premium system under which institutions paid assessments in the range of 0.23 percent to 0.31

percent. In May 1995, the BIF reached the mandatory recapitalization level of 1.25 percent. As a result, BIF assessment rates were reduced to a range of 0.04 percent to 0.31 percent of assessable deposits, effective June 1995, and assessments totaling $1.5 billion were refunded in September 1995. Assessment rates for BIF

were lowered again to a range of 0 to 0.27 percent of assessable deposits, effective the start of 1996. In 1996, the SAIF collected a one-time special assessment of

$4.5 billion. Subsequently, assessment rates for SAIF were lowered to the same range as BIF, effective October 1996. This range of rates remained unchanged for

both funds through 2006. As part of the implementation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, assessment rates were increased to a range of 0.05

percent to 0.43 percent of assessable deposits effective at the start of 2007, but many institutions received a one-time assessment credit ($4.7 billion in total) to

offset the new assessments.

2 These expenses, which are presented as operating expenses in the Statements of Income and Fund Balance, pertain to the FDIC in its corporate capacity only

and do not include costs that are charged to the failed bank receiverships that are managed by the FDIC. The receivership expenses are presented as part of the

“Receivables from Bank Resolutions, net” line on the Balance Sheets. The narrative and graph presented in the “Corporate Planning and Budget” section of this

report (next page) show the aggregate (corporate and receivership) expenditures of the FDIC.

3 Includes $210 million for the cumulative effect of an accounting change for certain postretirement benefits.

4 Includes $105.6 million net loss on government securities.

5 This amount represents interest and other insurance expenses from 1933 to 1972.

6 Includes the aggregate amount of $80.6 million of interest paid on capital stock between 1933 and 1948.

INCOME AND EXPENSES, DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, FROM BEGINNING OF OPERATIONS,

SEPTEMBER 11, 1933, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008 (continued)

Dollars in Millions
134 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

NUMBER, ASSETS, DEPOSITS, LOSSES, AND LOSS TO FUNDS OF INSURED

THRIFTS TAKEN OVER OR CLOSED BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES,

1989 THROUGH 19951

Dollars in Thousands

Year Total Assets Deposits

Estimated

Receivership Loss2 Loss to Funds3

Total 747 $393,986,274 $317,499,876 $75,315,668 $81,580,421

1995 2 423,819 414,692 28,192 27,750

1994 2 136,815 127,508 11,472 14,599

1993 9 6,147,962 4,881,461 267,595 65,212

1992 59 44,196,946 34,773,224 3,234,947 3,780,184

1991 144 78,898,704 65,173,122 8,624,447 9,122,686

1990 213 129,662,398 98,963,960 16,063,923 19,258,817

19894 318 134,519,630 113,165,909 47,085,092 49,311,173

1 Beginning in 1989 through July 1, 1995, all thrift closings were the responsibility of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). Since the RTC was

terminated on December 31, 1995, and all assets and liabilities transferred to the FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF), all the results of the thrift closing

activity from 1989 through 1995 are now reflected on FRF’s books. Year is the year of failure, not the year of resolution.

2 The estimated losses represent the projected loss at the fund level from receiverships for unreimbursed subrogated claims of the FRF and unpaid

advances to receiverships from the FRF.

3 The Loss to Funds represents the total resolution cost of the failed thrifts in the FRF-RTC fund, which includes corporate revenue and expense items

such as interest expense on Federal Financing Bank debt, interest expense on escrowed funds, and interest revenue on advances to receiverships, in

addition to the estimated losses for receiverships.

4 Total for 1989 excludes nine failures of the former FSLIC.
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 135

C6 ( DCS

Name and Location

Bank

Class

No. of

Deposit

Accounts

Total

Assets2

Total

Deposits2

FDIC

Disbursements3

Estimated

Loss1

Date of

Closing or

Acquisition

Receiver/Assuming Bank

and Location

Purchase and Assumption – Insured Deposits

Hume Bank,

Hume, MO

NM 1,330 $18,682 $13,566 $13,794 $4,324 03/07/08 Security Bank,

Rich Hill, MO

ANB Financial

Bentonville, AR

N 20,904 $1,895,545 $1,815,691 $1,745,038 $819,436 05/09/08 Pulaski Bank and Trust

Company, Little Rock, AR

IndyMac Bank, FSB,

Pasadena, CA

SA 281,930 $30,698,512 $18,941,727 $15,314,602 $10,724,595 07/11/08 Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation

First Priority Bank,

Bradenton, FL

NM 6,326 $258,610 $226,698 $201,988 $81,196 08/01/08 SunTrust Bank, Atlanta, GA

The Columbian Bank and

Trust Company, Topeka, KS

NM 10,273 $735,071 $620,354 $586,285 $232,127 08/22/08 Citizens Bank, and Trust,

Chillicothe, MO

Silver State Bank,

Henderson, NV

NM 20,014 $1,957,120 $1,733,091 $1,460,245 $553,095 09/05/08 Nevada State Bank,

Las Vegas, NV

Alpha Bank & Trust,

Alpharetta, GA

NM 7,589 $354,090 $344,231 $331,163 $159,914 10/24/08 Sterns Bank, National

Association, St. Cloud, MN

First Georgia Community

Bank, Jackson, GA

SM 9,051 $256,371 $215,287 $187,065 $52,015 12/05/08 United Bank,

Zebulon, GA

Sanderson State Bank,

Sanderson, TX

NM 855 $38,217 $32,012 $27,225 $9,646 12/12/08 The Pecos County State

Bank, Fort Stockton, TX

Haven Trust Bank,

Duluth, GA

NM 10,041 $559,551 $489,692 $506,700 $207,957 12/12/08 Branch Bankings & Trust,

Winston-Salem, NC

Whole Bank Purchase and Assumption – All Deposits

Douglass National Bank,

Kansas City, MO

N 4,904 $52,824 $50,250 $10,400 $6,544 01/25/08 Liberty Bank and Trust

Company, New Orleans, LA

First Integrity Bank,

Staples, MN

N 5,372 $52,916 $50,178 $49,710 $10,108 05/30/08 First International Bank

and Trust, Watford City, ND

Washington Mutual Bank,

Henderson, NV

SA 20,933,279 $307,021,614 $188,260,793 $0 $0 09/25/08 JPMorgan Chase

Downey Savings & Loan

Assoc., Newport Beach, CA

SA 605,841 $12,779,371 $9,653,169 $0 $1,374,607 11/21/08 U.S. Bank,National

Association, Minneapolis, MN

PFF Bank & Trust,

Pomona, CA

SA 143,421 $3,715,433 $2,393,845 $0 $729,561 11/21/08 U.S. Bank,National

Association, Minneapolis, MN

FDIC- INSURED INSTITUTIONS CLOSED DURING 2008

Dollars in Thousands
136 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

FDIC-INSURED INSTITUTIONS CLOSED DURING 2008 (continued)

Dollars in Thousands

Name and Location

Bank

Class

No. of

Deposit

Accounts

Total

Assets2

Total

Deposits2

FDIC

Disbursements3

Estimated

Loss1

Date of

Closing or

Acquisition

Receiver/Assuming Bank

and Location

Purchase and Assumption – All Deposits

First National Bank of

Nevada, Reno, NV

N 81,758 $3,411,145 $3,038,053 $2,806,600 $706,119 07/25/08 Mutual of Omaha Bank,

Omaha, NE

First Heritage Bank,

Newport Beach, CA

N 4,572 $255,376 $234,812 $256,700 $33,125 07/25/08 Mutual of Omaha Bank,

Omaha, NE

Integrity Bank,

Alpharetta, GA

NM 22,767 $1,107,514 $962,456 $933,932 $210,779 08/29/08 Regions Bank,

Birmingham, AL

Ameribank, Inc.,

Northfork, WV

SA 13,052 $103,965 $100,901 $90,789 $33,413 09/19/08 Pioneer Community Bank,

Inc., Iaeger, WV

The Citizens Savings Bank,

Martins Ferry, OH

Meridian Bank,

Eldred, IL

NM 4,252 $38,223 $36,090 $36,100 $14,482 10/10/08 National Bank,

Hillsboro, IL

Main Street Bank,

Northville, MI

NM 2,395 $112,368 $98,934 $85,686 $32,058 10/10/08 Monroe Bank & Trust,

Monroe, MI

Freedom Bank,

Bradenton, FL

NM 6,698 $270,842 $256,793 $256,618 $92,853 10/31/08 Fifth Third Bank, Grand

Rapids, MI

Security Pacific Bank,

Los Angeles, CA

NM 5,417 $527,959 $456,472 $478,800 $175,478 11/07/08 Pacific Western Bank,

Los Angeles, CA

Franklin Bank, SSB,

Houston, TX

SB 111,394 $5,089,260 $3,692,887 $4,288,427 $1,361,570 11/07/08 Prosperity Bank,

El Campo, TX

The Community Bank,

Loganville, GA

NM 13,391 $634,901 $603,733 $619,550 $247,275 11/21/08 Bank of Essex,

Tappahannock, VA

Codes for Bank Class: NM = State-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve System

N = National Bank

SB = Savings Bank

SM = State-chartered bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System

SA = Savings Association

1 Estimated losses are as of 12/31/08. Estimated losses are routinely adjusted with updated information from new appraisals and asset sales, which ultimately

affect the asset values and projected recoveries.

2 Total Assets and Total Deposits data are based upon the last Call Report filed by the institution prior to failure.

3 Represents corporate cash disbursements.
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 137

C6 ( DCS

Recoveries and Losses by the Deposit Insurance Fund on

Disbursements for the Protection of Depositors, 1934-2008

BANK AND THRIFT FAILURES3

Dollars in Thousands

Year1

Number of

Banks/

Thrifts Total Assets

Total

Deposits

Disbursements Recoveries

Estimated

Additional

Recoveries

Estimated

Losses

2,120 $617,286,408 $437,381,931 $299,321,807 $241,801,868 $6,507,981 $51,011,958

2008 25 371,945,480 234,321,715 194,052,076 170,329,549 5,850,250 17,872,277

2007 3 2,614,928 2,424,187 1,909,549 1,315,770 399,758 194,021

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004 4 170,099 156,733 138,895 134,978 0 3,917

2003 3 947,317 901,978 883,772 812,933 8,189 62,650

2002 11 2,872,720 2,512,834 2,068,519 1,628,771 70,338 369,410

2001 4 1,821,760 1,661,214 1,605,147 1,113,270 159,823 332,054

2000 7 410,160 342,584 297,313 265,175 0 32,138

1999 8 1,592,189 1,320,573 1,307,045 685,154 6,641 615,250

1998 3 290,238 260,675 286,678 52,248 9,134 225,296

1997 1 27,923 27,511 25,546 20,520 0 5,026

1996 6 232,634 230,390 201,533 140,918 0 60,615

1995 6 802,124 776,387 609,043 524,571 0 84,472

1994 13 1,463,874 1,397,018 1,224,769 1,045,718 0 179,051

1993 41 3,828,939 3,509,341 3,841,658 3,209,012 0 632,646

1992 120 45,357,237 39,921,310 14,173,886 10,499,873 0 3,674,013

1991 124 64,556,512 52,972,034 21,190,376 15,194,417 3,848 5,992,111

1990 168 16,923,462 15,124,454 10,812,484 8,041,033 0 2,771,451

1989 206 28,930,572 24,152,468 11,443,281 5,247,995 0 6,195,286

1988 200 38,402,475 26,524,014 10,432,655 5,055,157 0 5,377,498

1987 184 6,928,889 6,599,180 4,876,994 3,014,502 0 1,862,492

1986 138 7,356,544 6,638,903 4,632,121 2,949,583 0 1,682,538

1985 116 3,090,897 2,889,801 2,154,955 1,506,776 0 648,179

1984 78 2,962,179 2,665,797 2,165,036 1,641,157 0 523,879

1983 44 3,580,132 2,832,184 3,042,392 1,973,037 0 1,069,355

1982 32 1,213,316 1,056,483 545,612 419,825 0 125,787

1981 7 108,749 100,154 114,944 105,956 0 8,988

1980 10 239,316 219,890 152,355 121,675 0 30,680

1934 -

1979

558 8,615,743 5,842,119 5,133,173 4,752,295 0 380,878
138 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

RECOVERIES AND LOSSES BY THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND ON DISBURSEMENTS

FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS, 1934-2008 (continued)

ASSISTANCE TRANSACTIONS

Dollarsin Thousands

Year1

Number of

Banks/

Thrifts Total Assets

Total

Deposits

Disbursements Recoveries

Estimated

Additional

Recoveries

Estimated

Losses

146 $1,399,617,070 $351,855,135 $11,630,356 $6,199,875 $0 $5,430,481

20082 5 1,306,041,994 280,806,966 0 0 0 0

2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1992 2 33,831 33,117 1,486 1,236 0 250

1991 3 78,524 75,720 6,117 3,093 0 3,024

1990 1 14,206 14,628 4,935 2,597 0 2,338

1989 1 4,438 6,396 2,548 252 0 2,296

1988 80 15,493,939 11,793,702 1,730,351 189,709 0 1,540,642

1987 19 2,478,124 2,275,642 160,877 713 0 160,164

1986 7 712,558 585,248 158,848 65,669 0 93,179

1985 4 5,886,381 5,580,359 765,732 406,676 0 359,056

1984 2 40,470,332 29,088,247 5,531,179 4,414,904 0 1,116,275

1983 4 3,611,549 3,011,406 764,690 427,007 0 337,683

1982 10 10,509,286 9,118,382 1,729,538 686,754 0 1,042,784

1981 3 4,838,612 3,914,268 774,055 1,265 0 772,790

1980 1 7,953,042 5,001,755 0 0 0 0

1934 -

1979

4 1,490,254 549,299 0 0 0 0

1 For 1990 through 2005, amounts represent the sum of BIF andSAIF failures (excludingthose handledby the RTC);prior to 1990, figures are only for BIF. After 1995, all thrift closingsbecame the

responsibility of the FDIC andamounts are reflectedin the SAIF. For 2006 to 2008, figures are for DIF. Assets anddepositdata arebasedon the last call or TFR Report filedbefore failure.

2 Includes institutions where assistance wasprovidedunder a systemic riskdetermination. Any costs that exceedthe amounts estimatedunder the least cost resolution requirement wouldbe

recoveredthrough a special assessment on all FDIC-insuredinstitutions.

3 Institutions closedby the FDIC, includingdeposit payoff, insureddeposit transfer, anddeposit assumption cases.
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 139

C6 ( DCS

2008 2007 2006

Deposit Insurance 123 215 142

Approved 123 215 142

Denied 0 0 0

New Branches 1,012 1,480 1,257

Approved 1,012 1,480 1,257

Denied 0 0 0

Mergers 275 306 229

Approved 275 306 229

Denied 0 0 0

Requests for Consent to Serve1 283 177 138

Approved 283 177 138

Section 19 8 24 11

Section 32 275 153 127

Denied 0 0 0

Section 19 0 0 0

Section 32 0 0 0

Notices of Change in Control 28 17 3

Letters of Intent Not to Disapprove 28 15 2

Disapproved 0 2 1

Broker Deposit Waivers 38 22 26

Approved 38 22 26

Denied 0 0 0

Savings Association Activities2 45 54 33

Approved 45 54 33

Denied 0 0 0

State Bank Activities/Investments3 11 21 14

Approved 11 21 14

Denied 0 0 0

Conversion of Mutual Institutions 10 10 9

Non-Objection 10 10 9

Objection 0 0 0

FDIC ACTIONS ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS APPLICATIONS 2006 – 2008

1 Under Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act, an insuredinstitution must receive FDIC approvalbefore employingaperson convictedofdishonesty orbreach of trust. Under Section

32, the FDIC must approve any change ofdirectors or senior executive officers at a state non-memberbank that is not in compliance with capital requirements or is otherwise in troubledcondition.

2 Amendments toPart 303 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations changedFDIC oversight responsibility in October 1998. In 1998,Part 303 changedthe Delegations of Authority to actupon applications.

3 Section 24 of the FDI Act, in general,precludes a federally-insuredstatebank from engagingin an activity notpermissible for a nationalbank andrequires notices tobe filed with the FDIC.
140 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

2008 2007 2006

Total Number of Actions Initiated by the FDIC 273 205 244

Termination of Insurance

Involuntary Termination

Sec. 8a For Violations, Unsafe/Unsound Practices or Conditions 0 0 0

Voluntary Termination

Sec. 8a By Order Upon Request 1 0 1

Sec. 8p No Deposits 2 2 2

Sec. 8q Deposits Assumed 1 4 3

Sec. 8b Cease-and-Desist Actions

Notices of Charges Issued* 21 3 0

Consent Orders 97 48 29

Sec. 8e Removal/Prohibition of Director or Officer

Notices of Intention to Remove/Prohibit 4 1 3

Consent Orders 62 40 89

Sec. 8g Suspension/Removal When Charged With Crime 0 0 0

Civil Money Penalties Issued

Sec. 7a Call Report Penalties 0 0 0

Sec. 8i Civil Money Penalties 98 96 93

Sec. 10c Orders of Investigation 2 7 17

Sec. 19 Denials of Service After Criminal Conviction 0 0 0

Sec. 32 Notices Disapproving Officer/Director’s

Request for Review 0 0 0

Truth-in-Lending Act Reimbursement Actions

Denials of Requests for Relief 1 0 0

Grants of Relief 0 0 2

Banks Making Reimbursement* 94 91 110

Suspicious Activity Reports (Open and closed institutions)* 133,153 137,548 119,384

Other Actions Not Listed** 5 7 5

COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER RELATED LEGAL ACTIONS 2006-2008

* These actionsdo not constitute the initiation of a formal enforcement action and, therefore, are not includedin the total number of actions initiated.

** Other Actions Not Listedincludes two Section 19 Waivergrants andthree Other Formal Actions.
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 141

C6 ( DCS

B. More About the FDIC

FDIC Board of Directors

Sheila C. Bair

Sheila C. Bair was sworn in as the 19th Chairman

of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(FDIC) on June 26, 2006. She was appointed

Chairman for a five-year term, and as a member of

the FDIC Board of Directors through July 2013.

Chairman Bair has an extensive background in

banking and finance in a career that has taken her

from Capitol Hill, to academia, to the highest levels

of government. Before joining the FDIC in 2006, she

was the Dean’s Professor of Financial Regulatory

Policy for the Isenberg School of Management at the

University of Massachusetts-Amherst since 2002.

While there, she also served on the FDIC’s Advisory

Committee on Banking Policy.

Other career experience includes serving as

Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at the

U.S. Department of the Treasury (2001 to 2002),

Senior Vice President for Government Relations of

the New York Stock Exchange (1995 to 2000), a

Commissioner and Acting Chairman of the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (1991 to

1995), and Research Director, Deputy Counsel and

Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole

(1981 to 1988).

As FDIC Chairman, Ms. Bair has presided over a

tumultuous period in the nation’s financial sector.

Her innovations have transformed the agency with

programs that provide temporary liquidity

guarantees, increases in deposit insurance limits,

and systematic loan modifications to troubled

borrowers. Ms. Bair’s work at the FDIC has also

focused on consumer protection and economic

inclusion. She has championed the creation of

an Advisory Committee on Economic

Inclusion, seminal research on small-dollar

loan programs, and the formation of broadbased alliances in nine regional markets to

bring underserved populations into the

financial mainstream.

Since becoming FDIC Chairman, Ms. Bair has

received a number of prestigious honors.

Among them, in 2009 she was named one of

Time Magazine’s “Time 100” most influential

people; awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in

Courage Award; and received the Hubert H.

Humphrey Civil Rights Award. In 2008,

Chairman Bair topped The Wall Street Journal’s

annual 50 “Women to Watch List.” That same year,

Forbes Magazine named Ms. Bair as the second

most powerful woman in the world after Germany’s

Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Chairman Bair has also received several honors for

her published work on financial issues, including

her educational writings on money and finance for

children, and for professional achievement. Among

the honors she has received are: Distinguished

Achievement Award, Association of Education

Publishers (2005); Personal Service Feature of the

Year, and Author of the Month Awards, Highlights

Magazine for Children (2002, 2003 and 2004); and

The Treasury Medal (2002). Her first children’s

book – Rock, Brock and the Savings Shock, was

published in 2006 and her second, Isabel’s Car

Wash, in 2008.

Chairman Bair received a bachelor’s degree from

Kansas University and a J.D. from Kansas

University School of Law. She is married to Scott P.

Cooper and has two children.

Martin J. Gruenberg, Sheila C. Bair, Chairman (seated), John C. Dugan, Thomas J. Curry,

andJohn M. Reich (standing, left to right)
142 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Martin J. Gruenberg

Martin J. Gruenberg was sworn in as Vice

Chairman of the FDIC Board of Directors on

August 22, 2005. Upon the resignation of

Chairman Donald Powell, he served as Acting

Chairman from November 15, 2005, to June 26,

2006. On November 2, 2007, Mr. Gruenberg was

named Chairman of the Executive Council and

President of the International Association of

Deposit Insurers (IADI).

Mr. Gruenberg joined the FDIC Board after broad

congressional experience in the financial services

and regulatory areas. He served as Senior Counsel

to Senator Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD) on the staff of

the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs from 1993 to 2005. Mr. Gruenberg

advised the Senator on issues of domestic and

international financial regulation, monetary policy

and trade. He also served as Staff Director of the

Banking Committee’s Subcommittee on

International Finance and Monetary Policy from

1987 to 1992. Major legislation in which Mr.

Gruenberg played an active role during his service

on the Committee includes the Financial

Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act

of 1989 (FIRREA), the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA),

the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002.

Mr. Gruenberg holds a J.D. from Case Western

Reserve Law School and an A.B. from Princeton

University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and

International Affairs.

Thomas J. Curry

Thomas J. Curry took office on January 12, 2004,

as a member of the Board of Directors of the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for a

six-year term. Mr. Curry serves as Chairman of the

FDIC’s Assessment Appeals Committee and Case

Review Committee.

Mr. Curry also serves as the Chairman of the

NeighborWorks® America Board of Directors.

NeighborWorks® America is a national nonprofit

organization chartered by Congress to provide

financial support, technical assistance, and

training for community-based neighborhood

revitalization efforts.

Further, Mr. Curry serves on the Board of Directors

of the HOPE for Homeowners Program. The HOPE

for Homeowners Program is a temporary Federal

Housing Administration mortgage insurance

program created by the Housing and Economic

Recovery Act of 2008.

Prior to joining the FDIC’s Board of Directors,

Mr. Curry served five Massachusetts Governors as

the Commonwealth’s Commissioner of Banks from

1990 to 1991 and from 1995 to 2003. He served as

Acting Commissioner from February 1994 to

June 1995. He previously served as First Deputy

Commissioner and Assistant General Counsel

within the Massachusetts Division of Banks. He

entered state government in 1982 as an attorney

with the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Office.

Director Curry served as the Chairman of the

Conference of State Bank Supervisors from 2000 to

2001. He served two terms on the State Liaison

Committee of the Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council, including a term as

Committee chairman.

He is a graduate of Manhattan College (summa

cum laude), where he was elected to Phi Beta

Kappa. He received his law degree from the

New England School of Law.
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 143

C6 ( DCS

John C. Dugan

John C. Dugan was sworn in as the 29th Comptroller

of the Currency on August 4, 2005. In addition to

serving as a director of the FDIC, Comptroller Dugan

also serves as chairman of the Joint Forum, a group of

senior financial sector regulators from the United

States, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia, and as a

director of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and NeighborWorks® America.

Prior to his appointment as Comptroller, Mr.

Dugan was a partner at the law firm of Covington

& Burling, where he chaired the firm’s Financial

Institutions Group. He specialized in banking and

financial institution regulation. He also served as

outside counsel to the ABA Securities Association.

He served at the Department of Treasury from 1989

to 1993 and was appointed assistant secretary for

domestic finance in 1992. In 1991, he oversaw a

comprehensive study of the banking industry that

formed the basis for the financial modernization

legislation proposed by the administration of the

first President Bush. From 1985 to 1989, Mr. Dugan

was minority counsel and minority general counsel

for the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Among his professional and volunteer activities

before becoming Comptroller, he served as a

director of Minbanc, a charitable organization

whose mission is to enhance professional and

educational opportunities for minorities in the

banking industry. He was also a member of the

American Bar Association’s committee on banking

law, the Federal Bar Association’s section of

financial institutions and the economy, and the

District of Columbia Bar Association’s section of

corporations, finance, and securities laws.

A graduate of the University of Michigan in 1977

with an A.B. in English literature, Mr. Dugan also

earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1981.

John M. Reich

John M. Reich was sworn in August 9, 2005, as

Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).

The President nominated Mr. Reich to be OTS

Director on June 7, 2005, and the Senate confirmed

his nomination on July 29, 2005. In this capacity,

Mr. Reich also served as a member of the Board of

Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC) until his retirement on

February 27, 2009.

Prior to joining OTS, Mr. Reich served as Vice

Chairman of the Board of Directors of the FDIC

since November 2002. He has been a member of the

FDIC Board since January 2001. He also served as

Acting Chairman of the FDIC from July to

August 2001.

Prior to coming to Washington, DC, Mr. Reich

spent 23 years as a community banker in Illinois

and Florida, including ten years as President

and CEO of the National Bank of Sarasota, in

Sarasota, Florida.

Mr. Reich also served 12 years on the staff of U.S.

Senator Connie Mack (R-FL), before joining the

FDIC. From 1998 through 2000, he was Senator

Mack’s Chief of Staff, directing and overseeing all

of the Senator’s offices and committee activities,

including those at the Senate Banking Committee.

Mr. Reich’s community service includes serving as

Chairman of the Board of Trustees of a public

hospital facility in Ft. Myers, FL, and Chairman of

the Board of Directors of the Sarasota Family

YMCA. He has also served as a Board member for a

number of civic organizations, and was active for

many years in youth baseball programs.

Mr. Reich holds a B.S. degree from Southern

Illinois University and an M.B.A. from the

University of South Florida. He is also a graduate of

Louisiana State University’s School of Banking of

the South.
144 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

FDIC Organization Chart/Officials

as of December 31, 2008

Office of Inspector General

Jon T. Rymer

Inspector General

Chief Information Officer

and Chief Privacy Officer

Michael E. Bartell

Deputy to the Chairman

Jason C. Cave

General Counsel

John V. Thomas

Acting General Counsel

Office of the Ombudsman

Cottrell L. Webster

Ombudsman

Corporate University

Thom H. Terwilliger

Chief Learning Officer

Division of Supervision and

Consumer Protection

Sandra L. Thompson

Director

Division of Insurance

and Research

Arthur J. Murton

Director

Office of Diversity and

Economic Opportunity

D. Michael Collins

Director

Division of Administration

Arleas Upton Kea

Director

Division of Information

Technology

Michael E. Bartell

Director

Division of Resolutions

and Receiverships

Mitchell L. Glassman

Director

Office of

International Affairs

Fred S. Carns

Director

Board of Directors

Sheila C. Bair

Martin J. Gruenberg

Thomas J. Curry

John C. Dugan

John M. Reich

Office of the Chairman

Sheila C. Bair

Chairman

Vice Chairman

Martin J. Gruenberg

Chief of Staff

Jesse O. Villarreal, Jr.

Office of Public Affairs

Andrew Gray

Director

Deputy to the Chairman

and Chief Financial Officer

Steven O. App

Division of Finance

Bret D. Edwards

Director

Office of Enterprise

Risk Management

James H. Angel, Jr.

Director

Deputy to the Chairman

and Chief Operating Officer

John F. Bovenzi

Office of

Legislative Affairs

Eric J. Spitler

Director

Legal Division

John V. Thomas

Acting General Counsel
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 145

C6 ( DCS

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

	 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 


1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008*

Corporate Staffing

STAFFING TRENDS 1998-2008

* 2008 staffing totals reflect year-end full time equivalents, prior year totals reflect year-end on-board head counts.
146 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FDIC BY DIVISION/OFFICE 2007-2008 (YEAR-END)

TOTAL WASHINGTON REGIONAL/FIELD

2008

FTEs2

2008

Staffing

2007

Staffing

2008

FTEs2

2008

Staffing

2007

Staffing

2008

FTEs2

2008

Staffing

2007

Staffing

Division of

Supervision and

Consumer Protection 2,733 2,770 2,557 207 207 183 2,526 2,563 2,374

Legal Division 472 475 398 275 276 252 197 199 146

Division of Resolutions

and Receiverships 391 391 218 60 60 56 331 331 162

Division of

Administration 316 317 310 209 210 208 107 107 102

Division of

Information

Technology 283 284 276 221 222 213 62 62 63

Corporate University 240 240 214 47 47 52 193 193 162

Division of Insurance

and Research 182 184 177 145 147 145 36 37 32

Division of Finance 159 160 167 148 149 155 11 11 12

Office of Inspector

General 111 111 114 81 81 81 30 30 33

Executive Offices1 48 48 46 48 48 46 0 0 0

Office of Diversity and

Economic Opportunity 31 31 31 31 31 31 0 0 0

Office of Enterprise

Risk Management 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 0

Office of the

Ombudsman 11 11 12 8 8 12 3 3 0

Total 4,988 5,034 4,532 1,493 1,498 1,446 3,496 3,536 3,086

1 Includes the Offices of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Director (Appointive), Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Legislative

Affairs, Public Affairs and International Affairs.

2 FTEs are based on the work schedules of on-board employees at year-end. Totals may not foot due to rounding.
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 147

C6 ( DCS

Home Page on the Internet

www.fdic.gov

A wide range of banking, consumer and financial

information is available on the FDIC’s Internet

home page. This includes the FDIC’s Electronic

Deposit Insurance Estimator (EDIE), which estimates an individual’s deposit insurance coverage;

the Institution Directory – financial profiles of

FDIC-insured institutions; Community Reinvestment Act evaluations and ratings for institutions

supervised by the FDIC; Call Reports – banks’

reports of condition and income; and Money Smart,

a training program to help individuals outside the

financial mainstream enhance their money

management skills and create positive banking

relationships. Readers also can access a variety of

consumer pamphlets, FDIC press releases, speeches

and other updates on the agency’s activities, as well

as corporate databases and customized reports of

FDIC and banking industry information.

FDIC Call Center

Phone: 877-275-3342 (877-ASK FDIC)

703-562-2222

Hearing

Impaired: 800-925-4618

The FDIC Call Center in Washington, DC, is the

primary telephone point of contact for general

questions from the banking community, the public

and FDIC employees. The Call Center directly, or

in concert with other FDIC subject-matter experts,

responds to questions about deposit insurance and

other consumer issues and concerns, as well as

questions about FDIC programs and activities. The

Call Center also makes referrals to other federal

and state agencies as needed. Hours of operation

are 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time

Monday – Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,

Saturday - Sunday. Information is also available in

Spanish. Recorded information about deposit

insurance and other topics is available 24 hours a

day at the same telephone number.

Public Information Center

3501 Fairfax Drive

Room E-1005

Arlington, VA 22226

Phone: 877-275-3342 (877-ASK FDIC), or

703-562-2200

Fax: 703-562-2296

E-mail: publicinfo@fdic.gov

FDIC publications, press releases, speeches and

congressional testimony, directives to financial

institutions, policy manuals and other documents

are available on request or by subscription through

the Public Information Center. These documents

include the Quarterly Banking Profile, FDIC

Consumer News and a variety of deposit insurance

and consumer pamphlets.

Office of the Ombudsman

3501 Fairfax Drive

Room E-2022

Arlington, VA 22226

Phone: 877-275-3342 (877-ASK FDIC)

Fax: 703-562-6057

E-mail: ombudsman@fdic.gov

The Office of the Ombudsman (OO) is an independent, neutral and confidential resource and liaison

for the banking industry and the general public.

The OO responds to inquiries about the FDIC in a

fair, impartial and timely manner. It researches

questions and complaints primarily from bankers.

The OO also recommends ways to improve FDIC

operations, regulations and customer service.

Sources of Information
148 2 0 0 8 A n n u l R e p or

Atlanta Regional Of

10 Tenth Street,

Suite 800

Atlanta, GA 3030

678-916-2200

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Virginia

West Virginia

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

Regional and Area Office

Dallas Regional O

1601 Bryan Street

Dallas, TX 7520

214-754-0098

Colorado

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

Memphis Area Offi

5100 Poplar Avenue

Suite 1900

Memphis, TN 38137

901-685-1603

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Tennessee

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

Kansas City Regional

2345 Grand Boulevar

Suite 1200

Kansas City, MO 641

816-234-8000

Iowa

Kansas

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

North Dakota

South Dakota

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

San Francisco Regional

25 Jesse Street at Ecker Squar

Suite 2300

San Francisco, CA 941

415-546-0160

Alaska

Arizona

California

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

Oregon

Utah

Washington

Wyoming

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 149

C H A P T E R 6 ★ Append i

Chicago Regional Of

500 West Monroe Street

Suite 3500

Chicago,IL 60

312-382-6000

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Michigan

Ohio

Wisconsin

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

New York Regional

20 Exchange Plac

4th Floo

New York NY 1

917-320-2500

Delaware

District of Columbia

Maryland

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

Boston Area Off

15 Braintree Hill Office Park

Suite 100

Braintree, MS 02184

781-794-5500

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

Regional and Area Offices (continued
150 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

C. Office of Inspector

General’s Assessment

of the Management and

Performance Challenges

Facing the FDIC

2009 Management and

Performance Challenges

Unprecedented events and turmoil in the economy

and financial services industry have impacted every

facet of the FDIC’s mission and operations. In

looking at the current environment and anticipating to the extent possible what the future holds, the

Office of Inspector General (OIG) believes the

FDIC faces challenges in the areas listed below. We

would also point out that the Administration and

the Congress continue to broadly consider a

number of new programs to restore stability in the

financial system and strengthen the economy. If the

FDIC were to be made responsible for any or

certain aspects of such programs, it could also be

faced with a set of corresponding new challenges.

While the Corporation’s most pressing priority may

be on efforts to restore and maintain public confidence and stability, as outlined below, challenges

will persist in the other areas described as the

Corporation carries out its mounting resolution

and receivership workload, meets its deposit

insurance responsibilities, continues its supervision

of financial institutions, protects consumers, and

manages its internal workforce and other corporate

resources in the months ahead. The Corporation

will face daunting challenges as it carries out its

longstanding mission, responds to new demands,

and plays a key part in shaping the future of

bank regulation.

Restoring and Maintaining Public Confidence

and Stability in the Financial System

The FDIC is participating with other regulators, the

Congress, banks, and other stakeholders in

multiple new and changing initiatives, each with its

unique challenges and risks, to address current

crises. The initiatives have been formed in response

to crisis conditions, are very large in scale, and the

FDIC’s corresponding governance and supervisory

controls, in many cases, are still under development. Among the initiatives are the following:

Temporarily increasing basic deposit insurance

coverage limits from $100,000 to $250,000 per

depositor through December 31, 2009. There

is also a possibility of making this increase

permanent to help restore public confidence

and stability.

Implementing the Temporary Liquidity

Guarantee Program. Designed to free up funding for banks to make loans to creditworthy

businesses and borrowers, this program is

entirely funded by industry fees that totaled

$3.4 billion as of year-end. This program (1)

guarantees senior unsecured debt of insured

depository institutions and most depository

institution holding companies and (2) guarantees

noninterest bearing transaction deposit accounts

in excess of deposit insurance limits. The guarantees can go out as many as 3 years under the

current program, and we understand that the

Corporation has proposed the guarantees be

extended to 10 years if they are collateralized by

new loans. At the end of December 2008,

$224 billion in FDIC-guaranteed debt was

outstanding, and more than half a million deposit

accounts received over $680 billion in additional

FDIC coverage through the transaction account

guarantee.

Engaging in loan modification programs at

IndyMac Federal Bank, for example, intended

to achieve affordable and sustainable mortgage

payments for borrowers and increase the value

of distressed mortgages by rehabilitating them

into performing loans. In the case of IndyMac, as of the end of 2008, the FDIC had sent

approximately 30,000 proposals to borrowers and

about 8,500 had accepted. Other institutions

have agreed to implement loan modification

programs as part of their financial stability

agreements with the FDIC and other financial

regulatory agencies.

Processing applications for those FDIC-supervised institutions applying to the Department

of the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program

(TARP) Capital Purchase Program (CPP). This

program authorizes the Treasury to purchase up

to $250 billion of senior preferred shares from

qualifying insured depository institutions. As

of January 15, 2009, the FDIC had received over

1,600 applications requesting nearly $34 billion

in TARP funding.

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 151

C6 ( DCS

Participating with the other federal bank

regulatory agencies in conducting stress testing

and a capital program to ensure that the largest

institutions have sufficient capital to perform

their role in the financial system on an on-going

basis and can support economic recovery, even in

more severe economic environments.

Participating in the government’s plan to remove

toxic assets from banks by creating investment

partnerships with private investors.

With so many new initiatives now set in motion to

restore confidence and stability, multiple and

sometimes interrelated new risks will present themselves, and demands will likely be placed on FDIC

systems, processes, policies, and human resources

to successfully manage and carry out the initiatives

and achieve intended results. In that connection,

the FDIC needs to ensure that institutions

themselves carefully track the use of funds made

available through federal programs and provide

appropriate information on the use of such funds to

the FDIC, the Congress, and the public. Such

efforts will require vigilant oversight and effective

controls to ensure transparency, accountability, and

successful outcomes. The Treasury Secretary’s

February 10, 2009, announcement of the Administration’s Financial Stability Plan also suggests that,

in the months ahead, the FDIC may be further

involved in new activities to restart the flow of

credit, strengthen the financial system, and provide

aid for homeowners and small businesses.

Additionally, continuous coordination and

cooperation with the other federal regulators and

parties throughout the banking and financial

services industries will be critical in the months

ahead. Given recent attention on the financial

regulatory system in the United States and its

ability to keep pace with major developments and

risks in financial markets and products, the FDIC,

along with other regulators, will likely be subject to

increased scrutiny and possible corresponding

regulatory reform proposals that may have a

substantial impact on the regulatory entities.

 ́

 ́

Resolving Failed Institutions

A key aspect of the FDIC mission is to plan and

efficiently handle the resolutions of failing

FDIC-insured institutions and to provide prompt,

responsive, and efficient administration of failing

and failed financial institutions in order to

maintain confidence and stability in our financial

system. The resolution process involves valuing a

failing federally insured depository institution,

marketing it, soliciting and accepting bids for the

sale of the institution, considering the least costly

resolution method, determining which bid to

accept, and working with the acquiring institution

through the closing process. The receivership process involves performing the closing function at the

failed bank; liquidating any remaining assets; and

distributing any proceeds to the FDIC, the bank

customers, general creditors, and those with

approved claims. Challenges include the following:

Twenty-five financial institutions failed during 2008, with total assets at failure of $371.9

billion and total estimated losses to the Deposit

Insurance Fund of approximately $17.9 billion.

Large, complex failures and facilitated

transactions, such as IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.

(estimated $10.7 billion loss to the insurance

fund) and Washington Mutual Bank ($307 billion in assets) are challenging to resolve.

The FDIC’s problem institution list grew—from

171 to 252 during the fourth quarter of 2008—

and total assets of problem institutions increased

from $115.6 billion to $159 billion, indicating

a probability of more failures to come and an

increased asset disposition workload.

A reliable, accurate claims determination system

is essential to resolving failures in the most

cost-effective and least disruptive manner, and

the Corporation is in the process of developing

such a system.

The Corporation needs to ensure that receivership and resolution processes, negotiations, and

decisions made related to the future status of

the failed or failing institutions are marked by

fairness, transparency, and integrity.

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́
152 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

The FDIC is retaining large volumes of assets

as part of purchase and assumption agreements with institutions that are assuming the

insured deposits of failed institutions. The FDIC

will be responsible for disposing of the assets

over an extended period of time. The Division of Resolutions and Receiverships’ assets in

inventory totaled about $15 billion as of the end

of 2008.

Some FDIC-facilitated resolution and asset

disposition agreements include loss-share provisions that involve pools of assets worth billions

of dollars and extend up to 10 years. Citigroup,

for example, involves $306 billion in loans and

securities protected by loss-share provisions.

Ensuring the Viability of the Deposit

Insurance Fund (DIF)

Federal deposit insurance remains at the core of the

FDIC’s commitment to maintain stability and

public confidence in the Nation’s financial system.

A priority for the FDIC is to ensure that the DIF

remains viable to protect insured depositors in the

event of an institution’s failure. To maintain sufficient DIF balances, the FDIC collects risk-based

insurance premiums from insured institutions and

invests deposit insurance funds. A number of

important factors have affected and will continue

to affect the solvency of the fund, as follows:

A higher level of losses for actual and anticipated

failures caused the DIF balance to decrease

during the fourth quarter 2008 by $16 billion to

$19 billion (unaudited) as of December 31, 2008.

Communication and coordination with other

federal regulators is vital to the FDIC as deposit

insurer in its efforts to protect and administer

the DIF.

Off-site monitoring systems and processes must

be effective and efficient to mitigate risks to the

funds to the fullest extent possible.

The FDIC relies to varying degrees on call report

data for monitoring the financial institutions

it insures, assessing premiums for insurance,

determining guarantees it provides for deposits

and debt, and processing institution applications

under the TARP’s CPP. The Corporation needs

to ensure the reliability and accuracy of call

report data reflecting an institution’s financial condition in the interest of making good

decisions associated with risk at institutions and

preventing potential losses to the DIF.

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

In February 2009, the FDIC Board took action

to ensure the continued strength of the DIF

by imposing a one-time emergency special

assessment on institutions of 20 basis points—or

20 cents on every $100 of domestic deposits, to

be paid on September 30, 2009. The Chairman

subsequently considered lowering the assessment

to 10 basis points, while seeking to expand the

Corporation’s line of credit with the Treasury

Department from its current $30 billion. The

Congress is considering a permanent increase

to $100 billion, and authority for the FDIC to

request a temporary increase up to $500 billion

with required approval from the Federal Reserve,

the Treasury Department, and the President. The

Board also set assessment rates that generally

increase the amount that institutions pay each

quarter for insurance and made adjustments that

improve how the assessment system differentiates for risk. The FDIC will need to carefully

manage these changes to the assessment process.

The Corporation adopted a restoration plan in

October 2008 to increase the reserve ratio to the

1.15 percent threshold within 5 years. The ratio

declined from 0.76 percent at September 30, 2008

to 0.40 percent at year-end. In February 2009, the

Board invoked the “extenuating circumstances”

provision in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act

and voted to extend the restoration plan horizon

to 7 years.

The Corporation will be continuing to play a

leadership role in its work with global partners on

such matters as Basel II to ensure strong regulatory capital standards to protect the international

financial system from problems that might arise

when a major bank or series of banks fail.

Ensuring Institution Safety and Soundness

Through an Effective Examination and

Supervision Program

The Corporation’s bank supervision program promotes the safety and soundness of FDIC-supervised

insured depository institutions. As of December 31,

2008, the FDIC was the primary federal regulator

for 5,116 FDIC-insured, state-chartered institutions

that were not members of the Federal Reserve

System (generally referred to as “state non-member”

institutions). The Department of the Treasury (the

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the

Office of Thrift Supervision) or the Federal Reserve

 ́

 ́

 ́
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 153

C6 ( DCS

Board supervise other banks and thrifts, depending

on the institution’s charter.

The examination of the banks that it regulates is a

core FDIC supervisory function. The Corporation

also has back-up examination authority to protect

the interests of the Deposit Insurance Fund for

about 3,200 national banks, state-chartered banks

that are members of the Federal Reserve System,

and savings associations. In the current

environment, efforts to continue to ensure safety

and soundness and carry out the examination

function will be challenging in a number of ways.

The Corporation needs to ensure it has sufficient

resources to keep pace with its rigorous examination schedule and the needed expertise to

address complex transactions and new financial

instruments that may affect an institution’s

safety and soundness.

In light of the many and varied new programs

that financial institutions may engage in, the

FDIC’s examination workforce will be reviewing and commenting on a number of new issues

when they assign examination ratings—both

in terms of risk management and compliance

examinations. For example, they will need to

analyze banks’ compliance with TARP CPP

securities purchase agreements, use of TARP

funding, and use of capital subscriptions to

promote lending to creditworthy borrowers and

encourage foreclosure prevention efforts.

The FDIC’s follow-up processes must be effective

to ensure institutions are promptly complying

with any supervisory enforcement actions

resulting from the FDIC’s risk-management

examination process.

The FDIC must seek to minimize the extent to

which the institutions it supervises are involved

in or victims of financial crimes and other

abuse. The rapid changes in the banking industry, increase in electronic and on-line banking,

growing sophistication of fraud schemes, and the

mere complexity of financial transactions and

financial instruments all create potential risks

at FDIC-insured institutions and their service

providers. These risks could negatively impact

the FDIC and the integrity of the U.S. financial

system and contribute to institution failures

if existing checks and balances falter or are

intentionally bypassed. FDIC examiners need to

be alert to the possibility of fraudulent activity

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

in financial institutions, and make good use of

reports, information, and other resources available to them to help detect such fraud.

Protecting and Educating Consumers and

Ensuring an Effective Compliance Program

The FDIC’s efforts to ensure that banks serve their

communities and treat consumers fairly continue

to be a priority. The FDIC carries out its role by

educating consumers, providing them with access

to information about their rights and disclosures

that are required by federal laws and regulations,

and examining the banks where the FDIC is the

primary federal regulator to determine the

institutions’ compliance with laws and regulations

governing consumer protection, fair lending, and

community investment. It has challenging

initiatives underway in these areas.

The FDIC’s compliance program, including

examinations, visitations, and follow-up

supervisory attention on violations and other

program deficiencies, is critical to ensuring that

consumers and businesses obtain the benefits

and protections afforded them by law.

The FDIC will continue to conduct Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examinations in

accordance with the CRA, a 1977 law intended to

encourage insured banks and thrifts to help meet

the credit needs of the communities in which

they are chartered to do business, including

low- and moderate-income neighborhoods,

consistent with safe and sound operations.

As part of the FDIC’s 75th anniversary year, the

Corporation conducted a nationwide financial

education program to promote the importance of

personal savings and responsible financial management and launched a nationwide campaign

to help consumers learn about the benefits and

limitations of deposit insurance. It will continue

such endeavors to disseminate updated information to all consumers, including the unbanked

and underbanked, going forward. To protect

consumer privacy, the FDIC also conducts

periodic examinations to verify that institutions

comply with laws designed to protect personal

information. The FDIC evaluates the adequacy

of financial institutions’ programs for securing customer data and may pursue informal or

formal supervisory action if it finds a deficiency.

 ́

 ́

 ́
154 2 0 0 8 A N N U A L R E P O R T

Effectively Managing the FDIC Workforce

and Other Corporate Resources

The FDIC must effectively manage and utilize a

number of critical strategic resources in order to

carry out its mission successfully, particularly its

human, financial, information technology, and

physical resources. The FDIC will face challenges as

it carries out activities to promote sound

governance and effective stewardship of its core

business processes and resources.

The FDIC continues work to ensure it has a

sufficient, engaged, skilled, flexible workforce

to handle its increased and changing workload.

The Board approved an authorized FDIC staffing level of 6,269, reflecting an increase of 1,459

positions from the staffing level authorized

at the beginning of 2008. These staff—mostly

temporary—will perform bank examinations

and other supervisory activities to address bank

failures, including managing and selling assets

retained by the FDIC when a failed bank is sold.

The Board also approved opening a temporary

West Coast Satellite Office for resolving failed

financial institutions and managing the resulting

receiverships. Rapidly hiring and training so

many new staff along with expanded contracting

activity will place heavy demands on the Corporation’s human resources staff and operations.

The FDIC’s numerous enterprise risk

management activities need to consistently

identify, analyze, and mitigate operational risks

on an integrated, corporate-wide basis. Such

risks need to be communicated throughout the

Corporation and the relationship between internal and external risks and related risk mitigation

activities should be understood by all involved.

With a new Administration and anticipated

retirements in the executive ranks of the FDIC,

Board make-up and composition of the FDIC’s

senior leadership team could be altered at

a tumultuous time when significant policy,

operational, and other issues warrant the highlevel focus and attention of the Board members

and reliance on the institutional and historical

knowledge of senior FDIC management.

 ́

 ́

 ́

The Deposit Insurance Fund totaled $19 billion

at the end of the fourth quarter 2008, compared

to $52 billion at year-end 2007. FDIC investment

policies and controls must ensure that these

funds be invested in accordance with applicable

requirements and sound investment strategies.

The Board approved a $2.24 billion 2009

Corporate Operating Budget, approximately

$1.03 billion higher than for 2008. The FDIC’s

operating expenses are largely paid from the

insurance fund, and consistent with sound corporate governance principles, the Corporation

must continuously seek to be efficient and

cost-conscious.

Ensuring the integrity, availability, and appropriate confidentiality of bank data, personally

identifiable information, and other sensitive

information in an environment of increasingly

sophisticated security threats and global

connectivity can pose challenges. Protecting the information that the FDIC possesses

in its supervisory, resolution, and receivership

capacities requires a strong records management

program, a correspondingly effective enterprisewide information security program, and

continued attention to ensuring physical security

for all FDIC resources.

The FDIC awarded approximately $500 million

in contracts during 2008 as of September 30.

Effective and efficient processes and related

controls for identifying needed goods and

services, acquiring them, and monitoring

contractors after the contract award must be in

place and operate well.

With increased resolution and receivership

workload, the level of FDIC contracting for

activities such as property management and

marketing, loan servicing, due diligence,

subsidiary management, financial advisory

services, and legal services will increase

significantly, and effective controls must be in

place and operational. According to the Division

of Resolutions and Receiverships, as of October 1,

2008, it had awarded $225.9 million in contracts

during 2008, compared to $37.9 million in 2007.

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́

 ́
F E D E R A L D E P O S I T I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N 155

C6 ( DCS

The FDIC OIG is committed to its mission of

assisting and augmenting the FDIC’s contribution

to stability and public confidence in the nation’s

financial system. Now more than ever, we have a

crucial role to play to help ensure economy,

efficiency, effectiveness, integrity, and transparency

of programs and associated activities, and to

protect against fraud, waste, and abuse that can

undermine the FDIC’s success. Our management

and performance challenges evaluation is based

primarily on the FDIC operating environment as of

the end of 2008, unless otherwise noted. We will

continue to communicate and coordinate closely

with the Corporation, the Congress, and other

financial regulatory OIGs as we address these

issues and challenges. Results of OIG work will be

posted at www.fdicig.gov.