VI. Appendices 

Appendix A - Key Statistics

 

 FDIC

 RTC

$ 2,000

 1,500

 1,000

 500

 0

 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

 FDIC Expenditures 1996-2006

The FDIC’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan provide 

the basis for annual planning and budgeting for needed resources. 

The 2006 aggregate budget (for corporate, receivership and 

investment spending) was $1.09 billion, while actual expenditures 

for the year were $1.00 billion, about $55 million less than 2005 

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 due to an increase 

in receivership-related expenses. 

The largest component of FDIC spending is for costs associated 

with staffing. Staffing decreased by 1 percent in 2006, from 

4,514 employees at the beginning of the year to 4,476 at the 

end of the year.

Note:

Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) expenditures became the responsibility of the FDIC on January 1, 1996.

Dollars in Millions

108

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Appendix A – Key Statistics
1

2

3

For 2006, the numbers are as of September 30, and prior years reflect December 31.

Estimated insured deposits reflect deposit information as reported in the fourth quarter FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile. Before 1991, insured deposits were estimated using percentages 

determined from the June 30 Call Reports.

Initial coverage was $2,500 from January 1 to June 30, 1934.

Deposits in Insured Institutions Insurance Fund as a Percentage of

2006 $ 100,000 $ 6,439,416 $ 4,094,765 63.6 $ 49,991.9 0.78 1.22

2005 100,000 6,168,146 3,890,911 63.1 48,596.6 0.79 1.25

2004 100,000 5,686,680 3,623,713 63.7 47,506.8 0.84 1.31

2003 100,000 5,182,016 3,451,117 66.6 46,022.3 0.89 1.33

2002 100,000 4,857,327 3,387,799 69.7 43,797.0 0.90 1.29

2001 100,000 4,481,888 3,210,727 71.6 41,373.8 0.92 1.29

2000 100,000 4,149,355 3,054,360 73.6 41,733.8 1.01 1.37

1999 100,000 3,802,744 2,868,881 75.4 39,694.9 1.04 1.38

1998 100,000 3,747,809 2,850,227 76.1 39,452.1 1.05 1.38

1997 100,000 3,507,493 2,746,006 78.3 37,660.8 1.07 1.37

1996 100,000 3,350,856 2,690,537 80.3 35,742.8 1.07 1.33

1995 100,000 3,318,513 2,663,560 80.3 28,811.5 0.87 1.08

1994 100,000 3,184,636 2,588,686 81.3 23,784.5 0.75 0.92

1993 100,000 3,220,109 2,602,043 80.8 14,277.3 0.44 0.55

1992 100,000 3,273,180 2.675,081 81.7 178.4 0.01 0.01

1991 100,000 3,330,738 2,734,073 82.1 (6,934.0) (0.21) (0.25)

1990 100,000 3,415,668 2,759,640 80.8 4,062.7 0.12 0.15

1989 100,000 3,414,066 2,756,757 80.7 13,209.5 0.39 0.48

1988 100,000 2,330,768 1,750,259 75.1 14,061.1 0.60 0.80

1987 100,000 2,201,549 1,658,802 75.3 18,301.8 0.83 1.10

1986 100,000 2,167,596 1,634,302 75.4 18,253.3 0.84 1.12

1985 100,000 1,974,512 1,503,393 76.1 17,956.9 0.91 1.19

1984 100,000 1,806,520 1,389,874 76.9 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

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 62.5 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 60.2 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

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

1945 5,000 157,174 67,021 42.4 929.2 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

 Total Estimated Percentage Deposit Total Estimated

 Insurance Domestic Insured of Insured Insurance Domestic Insured

Year Coverage Deposits Deposits Deposits Fund Deposits Deposits

Estimated Insured Deposits and the Deposit Insurance Fund, December 31, 1934, through September 30, 20061 

2

3

Dollars in millions

109
Income and Expenses, Deposit Insurance Fund, from Beginning of Operations, 

September 11, 1933, through December 31, 2006

Income

4

3

5

continued on next page

 Interest Funding 

 Investment Effective Provision Administrative and Other Transfer from 

 Assessment Assessment and Other Assessment for and Operating Insurance the FSLIC Net Income/

Year Total Income Credits Sources Rate1 Total Losses Expenses2 Expenses Resolution Fund (Loss)

Expenses and Losses

Total $ 107,192.5 $ 62,266.9 $ 6,709.1 $ 52,223.7 $ 58,125.1 $ 36,096.8 $ 14,841.7 $ 7,192.6 $139.5 $ 49,206.9

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 60.6 0.0 2,359.9 0.0010% 809.5 (160.2) 966.2 3.5 0 1,611.0

2004 2,240.4 104.3 0.0 2,136.1 0.0019% 607.6 (353.4) 941.3 19.7 0 1,632.8

2003 2,174.0 95.2 0.0 2,078.8 0.0019% (67.7) (1,010.5) 935.5 7.3 0 2,241.7

2002 1,795.9 108.0 0.0 2,276.9 0.0022% 719.6 (243.0) 945.1 17.5 0 1,076.3

2001 2,729.7 82.8 0.0 2,646.9 0.0019% 3,123.4 2,199.3 887.9 36.2 0 (393.7)

2000 2,569.9 64.1 0.0 2,505.8 0.0016% 945.2 28.0 883.9 33.3 0 1,624.7

1999 2,416.6 48.3 0.0 2,368.3 0.0013% 2,047.0 1,199.7 823.4 23.9 0 369.6

1998 2,584.3 36.7 0.0 2,547.6 0.0010% 817.5 (5.7) 782.6 40.6 0 1,766.8

1997 2,165.6 38.7 0.0 2,126.9 0.0015% 247.3 (505.7) 677.2 75.8 0 1,918.3

1996 7,157.3 5,294.7 0.0 1,862.6 0.1627% 353.6 (417.2) 568.3 202.5 0 6,803.7

1995 5,229.1 3,876.9 0.0 1,352.2 0.1242% 202.2 (354.2) 510.6 45.8 0 5,026.9

1994 7,682.0 6,722.6 0.0 959.4 0.2185% (1,825.1) (2,459.4) 443.2 191.1 0 9,507.1

1993 7,356.8 6,684.3 0.0 672.5 0.2146% (6,744.4) (7,660.4) 418.5 497.5 0 14,101.2

1992 6,480.5 5,759.8 0.0 720.7 0.1807% (596.8) (2,274.7) 614.8 1,063.1 35.4 7,112.7

1991 5,887.0 5,254.5 0.0 632.5 0.1605% 16,925.3 15,496.2 326.1 1,103.0 42.4 (10,995.9)

1990 3,856.3 2,873.3 0.0 983.0 0.0867% 13,059.3 12,133.1 275.6 650.6 56.1 (9,146.9)

1989 3,496.6 1,885.0 0.0 1,611.6 0.0001% 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 0.0833% 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 0.0833% 2,963.7 2,827.7 180.3 (44.3) 0 296.4

1985 3,385.4 1,433.4 0.0 1,952.0 0.0833% 1,957.9 1,569.0 179.2 209.7 0 1,427.5

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

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 28.0 180.4 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 6.0 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

Dollars in Millions

110
 The effective rates from 1950 through 1984 vary 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 vary because the FDIC exercised new authority to increase assessments above the statutory rate 

 when needed. Beginning in 1993, the effective rate is based on a risk-related premium system under which institutions pay 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, the assessment rate was reduced to 4.4 cents per $100 of insured deposits and assessment 

 premiums totaling $1.5 billion were refunded in September 1995.

 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 Resolutions, net” line 

 on the Balance Sheets. The information presented in the "FDIC Expenditures" table on page 108 of this report shows the aggregate (corporate and receivership) expenditures of the FDIC.

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

 Includes $105.6 million net loss on government securities.

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

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

Income

Income and Expenses, Deposit Insurance Fund, from Beginning of Operations, 

September 11, 1933, through December 31, 2006 (continued)

 Interest Funding 

 Investment Effective Provision Administrative and Other Transfer from 

 Assessment Assessment and Other Assessment for and Operating Insurance the FSLIC Net Income/

Year Total Income Credits Sources Rate1 Total Losses Expenses2 Expenses Resolution Fund (Loss)

Expenses and Losses

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

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 6.3 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

1933/4 7.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 N/A 10.0 0.2 9.8 0.0 0 (3.0)

Dollars in Millions

111
All Cases

Recoveries and Losses by the Deposit Insurance Fund on Disbursements for the Protection of Depositors, 

1934 through 2006 

Dollars in Thousands

1

 Number 

 of Estimated

 Banks/ Total Total Additional Estimated

Year Thrifts Assets Deposits Disbursements Recoveries Recoveries Losses

Total 2,234 $ 301,400,469 $ 246,367,303 $ 114,990,538 $ 76,073,360 $ 554,078 $ 38,363,100

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2004 4 165,866 145,885 138,895 133,905 1,167 3,823

2003 3 1,096,724 903,504 883,772 681,532 132,255 69,985 

2002 11 2,557,811 2,175,043 2,068,519 1,570,551 106,623 391,345

2001 4 2,234,253 1,610,474 1,605,147 1,057,206 268,182 279,759 

2000 7 407,618 340,533 297,313 265,175 0 32,138 

1999 8 1,486,775 1,331,578 1,307,045 662,773 28,614 615,658 

1998 3 370,400 335,076 286,678 52,248 8,312 226,118 

1997 1 25,921 26,800 25,546 20,520 0 5,026 

1996 6 215,078 200,973 201,533 140,937 0 60,596 

1995 6 753,024 632,700 609,043 524,571 0 84,472 

1994 13 1,392,140 1,236,488 1,224,769 1,045,718 0 179,051 

1993 42 4,405,373 3,827,177 3,841,658 3,198,503 902 642,253

1992 122 44,231,922 41,184,366 14,175,372 10,506,358 1,038 3,667,976

1991 127 63,203,713 53,832,141 21,196,493 15,197,510 2,586 5,996,397 

1990 169 15,676,700 14,488,900 10,817,419 8,034,946 4,399 2,778,074

1989 207 29,168,596 24,090,551 11,445,829 5,248,247 0 6,197,582

1988 280 70,065,789 45,499,102 12,163,006 5,244,866 0 6,918,140

1987 203 9,366,300 8,399,500 5,037,871 3,015,215 0 2,022,656

1986 145 7,710,400 7,056,700 4,790,969 3,015,252 0 1,775,717

1985 120 8,741,268 8,059,441 2,920,687 1,913,452 0 1,007,235

1984 80 3,276,411 2,883,162 7,696,215 6,056,061 0 1,640,154

1983 48 7,026,923 5,441,608 3,807,082 2,400,044 0 1,407,038

1982 42 11,632,415 9,908,379 2,275,150 1,106,579 0 1,168,571

1981 10 4,863,898 3,829,936 888,999 107,221 0 781,778

1980 11 244,117 221,302 152,355 121,675 0 30,680

1934-79 562 11,081,034 8,705,984 5,133,173 4,752,295 0 380,878

Deposit Assumption Cases

Total 1,484 $ 222,595,870 $ 185,201,955 $ 87,424,798 $ 58,624,845 $ 450,795 $ 28,349,158

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004 3 150,520 132,880 132,781 127,791 1,167 3,823

2003 3 1,096,724 903,504 883,772 681,532 132,255 69,985

2002 6 569,332 511,782 483,461 338,759 7,739 136,963

2001 4 2,234,253 1.610,474 1,605,147 1,057,206 268,182 279,759

2000 7 407,618 340,533 297,313 265,175 0 32,138

1999 8 1,486,775 1,331,578 1,307,045 662,773 28,614 615,658

1998 3 370,400 335,076 286,678 52,248 8,312 226,118

1997 1 25,921 26,800 25,546 20,520 0 5,026

1996 6 215,078 200,973 201,533 140,937 0 60,596

1995 6 753,024 632,700 609,043 524,571 0 84,472

1994 13 1,392,140 1,236,488 1,224,769 1,045,718 0 179,051

1993 37 4,098,618 3,556,005 3,580,297 3,035,754 902 543,641

1992 95 42,147,689 39,132,496 12,280,562 9,103,936 1,038 3,175,588

1991 103 61,593,332 52,274,435 19,938,700 14,410,415 2,586 5,525,699

1990 148 13,138,300 12,215,600 8,629,084 6,390,785 0 2,238,299

1989 174 26,811,496 21,931,451 9,326,725 3,985,855 0 5,340,870

1988 164 34,421,089 23,652,902 9,180,495 4,232,545 0 4,947,950

1987 133 4,311,700 4,020,700 2,773,202 1,613,502 0 1,159,700

1986 98 5,657,100 5,217,200 3,476,140 2,209,924 0 1,266,216

1985 87 2,235,182 2,000,044 1,631,166 1,095,601 0 535,565

1984 62 1,905,924 1,603,923 1,373,198 941,674 0 431,524

1983 35 3,194,452 2,275,313 2,893,969 1,850,553 0 1,043,416

1982 25 681,025 552,436 268,372 213,578 0 54,794

1981 5 4,808,042 3,778,486 79,208 71,358 0 7,850

1980 7 218,332 199,846 138,623 110,248 0 28,375

1934-79 251 8,671,804 5,528,330 4,797,969 4,441,887 0 356,082

Number 

 of Estimated

 Banks/ Total Total Additional Estimated

Year Thrifts Assets Deposits Disbursements Recoveries Recoveries Losses

112
Recoveries and Losses by the Deposit Insurance Fund on Disbursements for the Protection of Depositors, 

1934 through 2006 (continued)

Dollars in Thousands

Assistance Transactions

1

2

Totals do not include dollar amounts for 

 the five open bank assistance transactions 

 between 1971 and 1980. Excludes eight 

 transactions prior to 1962 that required 

 no disbursements. Also, disbursements, 

 recoveries, and estimated additional 

 recoveries do not include working 

 capital advances to and repayments 

 by receiverships.

 Includes insured deposit transfer cases.

 Note: 

 Beginning with the 1997 Annual Report, 

 the number of banks in the Assistance 

 Transactions column for 1988 was changed 

 from 21 to 80 and the number of banks 

 in the All Cases column was changed from 

 221 to 280 to reflect that one assistance 

 transaction encompassed 60 institutions. 

 Also, certain 1982, 1983, 1989 and 1992 

 resolutions previously reported in either 

 the Deposit Payoff or Deposit Assumption 

 categories were reclassified.

2 Deposit Payoff Cases

Total 609 $ 18,687,250 $ 17,157,091 $ 15,935,384 $ 11,248,640 $ 103,283 $ 4,583,461

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004 1 15,346 13,005 6,114 6,114 0 0

2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2002 5 1,988,479 1,663,261 1,585,058 1,231,792 98,884 254,382

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 5 306,755 271,172 261,361 162,749 0 98,612

1992 25 2,049,320 2,018,402 1,893,324 1,401,186 0 492,138

1991 21 1,526,538 1,477,328 1,251,676 784,002 0 467,674

1990 20 2,522,500 2,257,700 2,183,400 1,641,564 4,399 537,437

1989 32 2,280,100 2,086,100 2,116,556 1,262,140 0 854,416

1988 36 1,276,700 1,278,400 1,252,160 822,612 0 429,548

1987 51 2,539,000 2,260,800 2,103,792 1,401,000 0 702,792

1986 40 1,334,500 1,253,900 1,155,981 739,659 0 416,322

1985 29 610,156 548,986 523,789 411,175 0 112,614

1984 16 855,568 784,597 791,838 699,483 0 92,355

1983 9 164,037 160,998 148,423 122,484 0 25,939

1982 7 585,418 538,917 277,240 206,247 0 70,993

1981 2 51,018 47,536 35,736 34,598 0 1,138

1980 3 17,832 16,454 13,732 11,427 0 2,305

1934-79 307 563,983 479,535 335,204 310,408 0 24,796

Number 

 of Estimated 

 Banks/ Total Total Additional Estimated

Year Thrifts Assets Deposit Disbursements Recoveries Recoveries Losses

Number 

 of Estimated

 Banks/ Total Total Additional Estimated

Year Thrifts Assets Deposits Disbursements Recoveries Recoveries Losses

Total 141 $ 60,117,349 $ 44,008,257 $ 11,630,356 $ 6,199,875 $ 0 $ 5,430,481

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 34,913 33,468 1,486 1,236 0 250

1991 3 83,843 80,378 6,117 3,093 0 3,024

1990 1 15,900 15,600 4,935 2,597 0 2,338

1989 1 77,000 73,000 2,548 252 0 2,296

1988 80 34,368,000 20,567,800 1,730,351 189,709 0 1,540,642

1987 19 2,515,600 2,118,000 160,877 713 0 160,164

1986 7 718,800 585,600 158,848 65,669 0 93,179

1985 4 5,895,930 5,510,411 765,732 406,676 0 359,056

1984 2 514,919 494,642 5,531,179 4,414,904 0 1,116,275

1983 4 3,668,434 3,005,297 764,690 427,007 0 337,683

1982 10 10,365,972 8,817,026 1,729,538 686,754 0 1,042,784

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

1980 1 7,953 5,002 0 0 0 0

1934-79 4 1,845,247 2,698,119 0 0 0 0

113
 Estimated 

 Receivership 

Year 2 Total Assets Deposits Loss Loss to Funds

Total 748 $ 395,017,406 $ 318,328,770 $ 75,060,219 $ 81,621,459

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

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

1993 10 7,178,794 5,708,253 267,595 65,212

1992 59 44,196,946 34,773,224 3,220,731 3,765,968

1991 144 78,898,904 65,173,122 8,426,188 8,957,761

1990 213 129,662,498 98,963,962 16,017,169 19,212,063

19895 318 134,519,630 113,168,009 47,088,872 49,578,106

Dollars in Thousands

3 4

 Prior to 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.

 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.

 The Loss to Funds represents the total resolution cost of the failed thrifts in the FRF-RTC funds, 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.

 Total for 1989 excludes nine failures of the former FSLIC.

1

2

3

4

5

Number, Assets, Deposits, Losses, and Loss to Funds of Insured Thrifts 

Taken Over or Closed Because of Financial Difficulties, 1989 through 19951

114
115

This page left blank intentionally. 
2006 2005 2004

Deposit Insurance 142 219 176

 Approved 142 219 176

 Denied 0 0 0

New Branches 1,257 1,575 1,447

 Approved 1,257 1,575 1,447

 Denied 0 0 0

Mergers 229 286 311

 Approved 229 286 311

 Denied 0 0 0

Requests for Consent to Serve●

138 170 301

 Approved 138 170 301

 Section 19 11 13 13

 Section 32 127 157 288

 Denied 0 0 0

 Section 19 0 0 0

 Section 32 0 0 0

Notices of Change in Control 3 9 18

 Letters of Intent Not to Disapprove 2 9 18

 Disapproved 1 0 0

Brokered Deposit Waivers 26 40 32

 Approved 26 40 32

 Denied 0 0 0

Savings Association Activities■33 59 70

 Approved 33 59 70

 Denied 0 0 0

State Bank Activities/Investments▼14 18 27

 Approved 14 18 27

 Denied 0 0 0

Conversions of Mutual Institutions 9 11 12

 Non-Objection 9 11 12

 Objection 0 0 0

Under Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act, an insured institution must receive FDIC approval before 

employing a person convicted of dishonesty or breach of trust. Under Section 32, the FDIC must also approve any change 

of directors or senior executive officers at a state nonmember bank that is not in compliance with capital requirements 

or is otherwise in troubled condition.

Amendments to Part 303 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations changed FDIC oversight responsibility in October 1998. 

In 1998, Part 303 changed the Delegations of Authority to act upon applications.

Section 24 of the FDI Act, in general, precludes a federally insured state bank from engaging in an activity not 

permissible for a national bank and requires notices to be filed with the FDIC. 

FDIC Actions on Financial Institutions Applications 2004-2006

●

■

▼

116
 2006 2005 2004

Total Number of Actions Initiated by the FDIC 244 192 217

Termination of Insurance 

 Involuntary Termination 

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

 Voluntary Termination 

 Sec. 8a By Order Upon Request 1 0 0

 Sec. 8p No Deposits 2 2 2

 Sec. 8q Deposits Assumed 3 11 38

Sec. 8b Cease-and-Desist Actions 

 Notices of Charges Issued 0 0 0

 Consent Orders 29 20 28

Sec. 8e Removal/Prohibition of Director orOfficer 

 Notices of Intention to Remove/Prohibit 3 2 3

 Consent Orders 89 73 58

Sec. 8g Suspension/Removal When Charged With Crime 0 0 1

Civil Money Penalties Issued 

 Sec. 7a Call Report Penalties 0 0 0

 Sec. 8i Civil Money Penalties 93 69 68

Sec. 10c Orders of Investigation 17 15 15

Sec. 19 Denials of Service After Criminal Conviction 0 0 1

Sec. 32 Notices Disapproving Officer/Director’s Request for Review 0 0 0

Truth-in-Lending Act Reimbursement Actions 

 Denials of Requests for Relief 0 0 0

 Grants of Relief 2 0 0

 Banks Making Reimbursement ●110 78 73

Suspicious Activity Reports (Open and closed institutions)●119,384 102,080 83,453

Other Actions Not Listed▼5 0 3

These actions do not constitute the initiation of a formal enforcement action and, therefore, are not included in the total 

number of actions initiated.

Other Actions Not Listed includes Written Agreements, Section 19 Waiver grants, Section 8(e) Modifications, and similar 

actions in which orders are issued.

Compliance, Enforcement and Other Related Legal Actions 2004-2006

●

117

▼
2006 Annual Report

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). 

While an academic, Chairman Bair 

also served on the FDIC’s Advisory 

Committee on Banking Policy. 

Chairman Bair’s prior work focused 

heavily on the banking sector. As 

the Assistant Treasury Secretary 

for Financial Institutions, she was 

charged with helping to develop the 

Administration’s positions on banking 

policy issues. She worked closely 

with Treasury’s own banking 

regulatory bureaus, the Office of 

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.

Before her appointment to the FDIC, 

Ms. Bair was the Dean’s Professor 

of Financial Regulatory Policy for the 

Isenberg School of Management at 

the University of MassachusettsAmherst since 2002. Other career 

Sheila C. Bair

FDIC Board of Directors

Martin J. Gruenberg, Sheila C. Bair, Chairman (seated), 

John C. Dugan, Thomas J. Curry, and John M. Reich (standing, left to right)

118

Appendix B – More About the FDIC
the Comptroller of the Currency and 

the Office of Thrift Supervision, as 

well as the Federal Reserve Board 

and the FDIC. Ms. Bair’s teaching 

and research at the University of 

Massachusetts also dealt extensively 

with banking and related issues. 

Ms. Bair has served as a member 

of several professional and nonprofit organizations, including the 

Insurance Marketplace Standards 

Association, Women in Housing 

and Finance, Center for Responsible 

Lending, NASD Ahead-of-the-Curve 

Advisory Committee, Massachusetts 

Savings Makes Cents, American Bar 

Association, Exchequer Club, and 

Society of Children’s Book Writers 

and Illustrators.

Five months after becoming 

Chairman, Ms. Bair was named 

to The Wall Street Journal magazine 

Smart Money’s (November 2006) 

“Power 30” list – the magazine’s 

lineup of the 30 most influential 

people in investing. 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 

book – Rock, Brock and the Savings 

Shock, a publication for children – 

was published in 2006. 

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 

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. 

Mr. Gruenberg joined the 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 all 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 GrammLeach-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. 

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 communitybased neighborhood revitalization 

efforts. 

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.

119
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 

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 will continue to 

serve as a member of the Board 

of Directors of the FDIC. 

Prior to joining OTS, Mr. Reich 

served as Vice Chairman of the 

Board of Directors of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation 

(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. 

120
FDIC Organization Chart/Officials

as of December 31, 2006

 Deputy to the Chairman 

 and Chief Financial Officer

Steven O. App

Deputy to the Chairman

Alice C. Goodman

 General Counsel

Douglas H. Jones*

Acting General Counsel

Deputy to the Chairman 

 and Chief Operating Officer

John F. Bovenzi

 Division of Finance

Frederick S. Selby

Director

 

 Division of Supervision 

 and Consumer Protection

Sandra L. Thompson

Director

 

 Division of Insurance 

 and Research

Arthur J. Murton

Director 

 Office of 

 Legislative Affairs

Eric J. Spitler

Director 

 Legal 

 Division 

Douglas H. Jones*

Acting General Counsel

 Office of the 

 Ombudsman

Cottrell L. Webster

Ombudsman

 Office of Diversity and 

 Economic Opportunity

D. Michael Collins

Director

 Corporate 

 University

Steven B. Mosier

Acting Chief Learning Officer

 Division of Information 

 Technology

Michael E. Bartell

Director

 Division of 

 Administration

Arleas Upton Kea

Director

 Division of Resolutions 

 and Receiverships

Mitchell L. Glassman

Director

 Office of International

 Affairs

 Fred S. Carns

Director

 

 Office of Enterprise 

 Risk Management

James H. Angel, Jr.

Director 

 Chief of Staff

Jesse O. Villarreal, Jr.

 

 Office of Public Affairs

Andrew B. Stirling

 Acting Director 

 Chief Information Officer 

 and Chief Privacy Officer

Michael E. Bartell

 

 Office of 

 Inspector General

Jon T. Rymer

 Inspector General

 

 Vice Chairman

Martin J. Gruenberg

 

 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

 

*Sara A. Kelsey became General Counsel on January 7, 2007.

121
8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

Note:

All staffing totals reflect year-end balances.

 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

 Staffing Trends 1997- 2006

 7,793 7,359 7,266 6,452 6,167 5,430 5,311 5,078 4,514 4,476

Corporate Staffing

122

Staffing
 Total Washington Regional/ Field 

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005

Executive Offices●39 37 39 37 0 0

Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection 2,517 2,541 195 198 2,322 2,343

Division of Resolutions and Receiverships 231 235 57 61 174 174

Legal Division 413 433 263 274 150 159

Division of Finance 161 175 161 175 0 0

Division of Information Technology▼274 270 214 209 60 61

Division of Insurance and Research 185 178 152 146 33 32

Division of Administration 311 349 207 232 104 117

Office of Inspector General 124 127 91 95 33 32

Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity 28 31 28 31 0 0

Office of the Ombudsman 12 12 10 10 2 2

Office of Enterprise Risk Management 11 11 11 11 0 0

Corporate University 170 115 38 37 132 78

Total 4,476 4,514 1,466 1,516 3,010 2,998

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

and International Affairs.

Division of Information Resources Management was renamed to Division of Information Technology on September 4, 2005.

●

▼

 Number of Officials and Employees of the FDIC 2005-2006 (year-end)

123
Sources of Information

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 8:00 a.m. to 

8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 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-1002

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.

124
Memphis Area Office

5100 Poplar Avenue

 Suite 1900

 Memphis, Tennessee 38137

 (901) 685-1603

 Arkansas 

 Louisiana 

 Mississippi

 Tennessee

Regional and Area Offices

 Atlanta Regional Office

10 Tenth Street, NE

 Suite 800

 Atlanta, Georgia 30309

 (678) 916-2200

Alabama Virginia

 Florida West Virginia

 Georgia 

 North Carolina

 South Carolina

 Chicago Regional Office

500 West Monroe Street

 Suite 3500

 Chicago, Illinois 60661

 (312) 382-7500

Illinois Wisconsin

 Indiana 

 Kentucky

 Michigan 

 Ohio

 Dallas Regional Office

 1910 Pacific Avenue

 Suite 1900

 Dallas, Texas 75201

 (214 ) 754-0098

 Colorado 

 New Mexico 

 Oklahoma

 Texas

 Kansas City Regional Office

 2345 Grand Boulevard

 Suite 1200

 Kansas City, Missouri 64108

 (816) 234-8000

 Iowa North Dakota

 Kansas South Dakota

 Minnesota 

 Missouri 

 Nebraska

 New York Regional Office

 20 Exchange Place

 4th Floor

 New York, New York 10005

 (917) 320-2500

 Delaware Puerto Rico

 District of Columbia Virgin Islands

 Maryland 

 New Jersey 

 New York

 Pennsylvania

Boston Area Office

 15 Braintree Hill Office Park

 Suite 100

 Braintree, Massachusetts 02184

 (781) 794-5500

 Connecticut

Maine 

 Massachusetts 

 New Hampshire

 Rhode Island

 Vermont

 San Francisco Regional Office

 25 Ecker Street

 Suite 2300

 San Francisco, California 94105

 (415) 546-0160

 Alaska Montana

 Arizona Nevada

 California Oregon

 Guam Utah

 Hawaii Washington

 Idaho Wyoming

125
 In keeping with the Reports Consolidation Act, the OIG has identified the 

 following management and performance challenges facing the Corporation.●

 Each of the challenges we have identified is marked by one or more of the 

 following characteristics:

 1. It is important to the achievement of the FDIC mission and the 

 strength of the nation’s financial system.

 2. It directly impacts consumers of financial services.

 3. It involves significant resources, expenditures, or fiduciary

 responsibility.

 The following challenges reflect the OIG’s view of the Corporation’s overall 

 program and operational responsibilities; industry, economic, and technological 

 trends; areas of congressional interest; relevant laws and regulations; the 

 Corporation’s priorities and corresponding corporate performance and 

 Government Performance and Results Act goals; and the ongoing activities 

 to address the issues involved.

Identifying and Mitigating Risks As of the end of the third quarter of 2006, the FDIC insured $4.095 trillion in 

to the Insurance Funds deposits in 8,755 institutions. According to FDIC projections, if the current

 trend of industry consolidation continues, the banks the FDIC directly

 supervises will likely represent a smaller and smaller portion of the financial

 exposure it faces as deposit insurer. In fact, as of June 30, 2006, the ten

 largest FDIC-insured institutions controlled 44 percent of total insured assets 

 and 42 percent of total insured deposits. The FDIC is the primary federal

 regulator for none of these institutions. The Corporation is also working to

 maintain strong regulatory capital standards under the Basel Accord and has

 been implementing major reforms in deposit insurance over the past ten

 months. Given these circumstances, the Corporation faces several 

 challenges:

 Assessing Risks in Large Banks:

 To effectively fulfill its fundamental responsibilities as deposit insurer, the

 Corporation must ensure its large-bank program provides ready access to 

 the information it needs to effectively identify and assess risks that large insti-

 tutions, including those it does not supervise, pose to the Deposit Insurance

 Fund (DIF). Effectively communicating and coordinating with the other primary

 federal banking regulators is central to the Corporation’s ability to meet this

 challenge. Moreover, given the inherent complexity of these large institutions,

 the FDIC must have or develop the capability to assess the risks associated

 with these institutions, which are different from those found in smaller banks. 

 To strengthen its oversight of large banks, the Corporation has implemented

 some key programs: the Large Insured Depository Institutions program,

 Dedicated Examiner program, and Off-site Review program. The FDIC 

 participates with the other federal regulators in the Shared National Credit 

 program. 

 Under the Reports Consolidation Act, the OIG is required to identify the most significant management and 

 performance challenges facing the Corporation and provide its assessment to the Corporation for inclusion 

 in its annual performance and accountability report (annual report). The OIG conducts this assessment 

 yearly and identifies a number of specific areas of challenge facing the Corporation at the time.

●

Appendix C – Office of Inspector General’s Assessment 

of the Management and Performance Challenges Facing the FDIC

126
 Maintaining Strong Regulatory Capital Standards:

 The FDIC and other regulators have evaluated policy options to ensure that

 large institutions and the industry as a whole maintain adequate capital and

 reserves under Basel II. The intent of Basel II is to more closely align regula-

 tory capital with risk in large or multinational banks. In conjunction with the

 transition to Basel II, the FDIC and the other federal bank regulatory agencies

 are pursuing a more risk-sensitive capital framework for the institutions

 that are not subject to or that opt out of Basel II. This new Basel IA capital

 framework seeks to minimize potential inequities between large and small

 banks resulting from Basel II implementation while maintaining adequate

 capital levels and avoiding undue burden on the affected institutions.

 In 2007, the federal bank regulatory agencies will review comments received

 in response to Basel II and Basel IA notices of proposed rulemaking, complete

 rulemaking for Basel IA, and eventually seek to make final rules for Basel II.

 Implementing Deposit Insurance Reform: 

 On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law the FDI Reform Act

 of 2005, prompting sweeping changes in the federal deposit insurance 

 system. The Congress gave the Corporation nine months to implement most

 of the provisions of the legislation, and the Corporation has worked diligently 

 to do so. In October 2006, the Board of Directors approved a final rule to 

 implement a one-time assessment credit to banks and thrifts. The credit will 

 be used to offset future assessments charged by the FDIC and will recognize

 contributions that certain institutions made to capitalize the funds during the

 first half of the 1990s. In November 2006, the Board also adopted a final rule

 on the pricing structure and approved a more risk-sensitive framework for

 the 95 percent of insured institutions that are well capitalized and well 

 managed.

Ensuring Institution Safety and Supervision is a cornerstone of the FDIC’s efforts to ensure stability and 

Soundness Through Effective public confidence in the nation’s financial system. As of September 30, 2006, 

Examinations, Enforcement, and the FDIC was the primary federal regulator for 5,237 institutions. The FDIC

Follow-Up performs risk management, information technology, trust, and other types

 of examinations of FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions. As part 

 of risk management examinations, the FDIC also ensures that institutions 

 comply with the regulatory requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. The 

 Corporation’s system of supervisory controls must identify and effectively 

 address financial institution activities that are unsafe, unsound, illegal, 

 or improper before the activities cause a drain on the insurance funds. 

 Specific challenges related to this core FDIC mission include:

 Maintaining an Effective Examination and Supervision Program:

 The FDIC has adopted a risk-focused approach to examinations to minimize

 regulatory burden and direct its resources to those areas that carry the 

 greatest potential risk. The FDIC must also ensure that financial institutions 

 have adequate corporate governance structures relative to the bank’s size, 

 complexity, and risk profile to prevent financial losses and maintain confidence

 in those entrusted with operating the institutions. The FDIC’s follow-up

 processes must be effective to ensure institutions are promptly complying

 with supervisory actions that arise as a result of the FDIC’s examination

 process. 

127
 Granting Insurance to and Supervising Industrial Loan Companies:

 The FDIC is the primary federal regulator for a number of industrial loan

 companies (ILCs), which are limited-charter depository institutions. ILCs

 may be owned by commercial firms, and these parents may not be 

 subject to consolidated supervision by a federal banking regulator. As of 

 September 30, 2006, there were 58 operating ILCs with aggregate total 

 assets of $177 billion. The FDIC must establish and maintain effective 

 controls in its processes for granting insurance to, supervising, and examin-

 ing ILCs, taking into consideration the relationship between the ILC and its 

 parent company and the effect of such a relationship on the ILC. This is 

 particularly important when the ILC’s holding company is not subject to the 

 scope of consolidated supervision, consolidated capital requirements, or 

 enforcement actions imposed on parent organizations subject to the Bank 

 Company Holding Act. 

 In July 2006, the FDIC placed a six-month moratorium on ILC deposit insurance

 applications and change of control notices. The Corporation wanted time to 

 assess developments in the ILC industry; determine whether any emerging 

 safety and soundness or policy issues exist; and evaluate whether statutory, 

 regulatory, or policy changes needed to be made in the oversight of these 

 institutions. While the moratorium is set to expire at the end of January, 

 a number of congressional representatives have voiced concern over mixing 

 banking and commerce and have urged the Corporation to extend its freeze 

 on granting industrial loan charters to commercial applicants. This issue will 

 continue to require FDIC attention.

Contributing to Public Confidence Guarding Against Financial Crimes in Insured Institutions: 

in Insured Depository Institutions All financial institutions are at risk of being used to facilitate or being victimized

 by criminal activities including money laundering and terrorist financing. Such

 activities serve to undermine public confidence in the nation’s financial system. 

 The Corporation is faced with developing and implementing programs to 

 minimize the extent to which the institutions it supervises are involved in 

 or victims of financial crimes and other abuse. Increased reliance by both 

 financial institutions and non-financial institution lenders on third-party brokers 

 has also created opportunities for increased real-estate frauds, including 

 property flipping and other mortgage frauds. Examiners must be alert to the 

 possibility of multiple types of fraudulent activity in financial institutions, which 

 is inherently difficult because fraud is both purposeful and hard to detect.

 Part of the FDIC’s overall responsibility and authority to examine banks for

 safety and soundness is the responsibility for examining state-chartered

 non-member financial institutions for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act

 (BSA). The BSA requires financial institutions to keep records and file reports

 on certain financial transactions. FDIC-supervised institutions must establish

 and maintain procedures to assure and monitor compliance with BSA

 requirements. An institution’s level of risk for potential money laundering

 determines the necessary scope of the BSA examination. In a related

 vein, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control

 (OFAC) promulgates, develops, and administers economic and trade sanctions 

 such as trade embargoes, blocked assets controls, and other commercial and 

 financial restrictions under the provisions of various laws. Generally, OFAC 

 regulations prohibit financial institutions from engaging in transactions with 

 the governments of, or individuals or entities associated with, foreign 

 countries against which federal law imposes economic sanctions. Sanctions

128
 can also be used against international drug traffickers, terrorists, or foreign

 terrorist organizations, regardless of national affiliation. A challenge for the

 FDIC is to provide effective supervision of compliance with OFAC regulations 

 by FDIC-supervised institutions.

 In its role as supervisor, the FDIC also analyzes data security threats, 

 occurrences of bank security breaches, and incidents of electronic crime 

 that involve financial institutions. Misuse and misappropriation of personal 

 information are emerging as major developments in financial crime. Despite

 generally strong controls and practices by financial institutions, methods for

 stealing personal data and committing fraud with that data are continuously

 evolving. The FDIC must continue its work in assuring the security of 

 customer data against such criminal activity to help maintain the public’s 

 trust and confidence in the banking system.

Protecting and Educating The FDIC protects consumers through its oversight of a variety of statutory 

Consumers and Ensuring and regulatory requirements aimed at safeguarding consumer privacy and 

Compliance Through Effective preventing unfair and unscrupulous banking practices. Through community

Examinations, Enforcement, outreach efforts and technical assistance, the FDIC encourages lenders to

and Follow-up work with members of their local communities in meeting the communities’

 credit needs and to serve the unbanked and underbanked members of their 

 communities. Specific challenges include:

 Safeguarding the Privacy of Consumer Information: 

 The FDIC implements regulations and conducts regularly scheduled exam-

 inations to verify that institutions comply with laws designed to protect

 personal information, which serve to guard against the growing threat of

 identity theft. 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. Banks are increasingly using

 third-party servicers to provide support for core information and transaction 

 processing functions and these servicers may operate domestically 

 or abroad. Notwithstanding such reliance, the obligations of a financial

 institution to protect the privacy and security of customer information

 under U.S. laws and regulations remain in full effect. Thus, an added

 challenge for the Corporation in examining and enforcing compliance 

 with consumer privacy and protection laws exists because the FDIC 

 expects institutions to effectively manage the risks and adequately 

 oversee the third-party service providers.

 Promoting Fairness and Inclusion in the Delivery of Information,

 Products, and Services to Consumers and Communities: 

 FDIC Chairman Bair has stressed the importance of economic inclusion and

 has expressed concern that market mechanisms are not working as well

 as they should for low-to-moderate income families who must often pay

 high amounts for basic financial services that others obtain at far less 

 cost. Many people lack the financial skills needed to analyze and compare 

 products and their prices. Oftentimes the problem is the lack of disclosures

 that describe a product and its true costs in fair and simple terms. Another

 factor could be linked to aspects of safety and soundness regulation that

 could unnecessarily deter banks from serving the needs of their communities 

 or create conditions that favor high-cost products. To address these 

 concerns, in addition to the FDIC’s existing Money Smart program, the 

 Corporation is undertaking two new initiatives—a military lending initiative 

129
 and a newly created Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion. As the 

 Chairman has pointed out, continuing dialogue among consumer advocates, 

 regulators, and the banking industry is key to the challenge of closing the 

 gap between what the unbanked and underbanked pay for credit and what 

 those in the mainstream pay. The challenge is to balance the need for 

 regulation while avoiding inappropriate or undue interference in legitimate 

 business activities. 

 Ensuring Compliance with Laws and Regulations and Follow-up on 

 Violations:

 The FDIC has supervisory responsibilities for ensuring that the financial 

 institutions it supervises comply with fair lending, disclosure, and various 

 other consumer protection laws and regulations. The compliance examina-

 tion is the primary means by which the FDIC determines the extent to 

 which a financial institution is complying with these requirements. Over 

 20 consumer protection laws and related regulations are addressed by 

 compliance examinations, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Fair 

 Housing Act, Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Fair 

 and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. The FDIC also conducts Community 

 Reinvestment Act examinations. The FDIC conducts visitations and 

 investigations to review the compliance posture of newly chartered 

 institutions coming under FDIC supervision or to follow up on an institution’s

 progress on corrective actions. Investigations are used to follow up on 

 a particular consumer’s inquiries or complaints. The compliance program, 

 including examination and follow-up supervisory attention on violations and

 other program deficiencies, helps to ensure that consumers and businesses

 obtain the benefits and protections afforded them by law. In instances 

 where repeat violations occur, the FDIC must remain vigilant in ensuring 

 appropriate corrective actions are taken.

Being Ready for Potential The FDIC is responsible for the resolution of failed banks or savings associations.

Institution Failures The Corporation is required by law to protect taxpayers by prudently 

 managing the Deposit Insurance Fund and to protect insured depositors by 

 using the assets of the fund to pay insured deposits at the time of institution 

 failure. The trend toward fewer failures over the past few years changes 

 the nature of the challenge for the FDIC. The Corporation is exploring new 

 strategies for planning for failing and failed institutions, including large or 

 multiple bank failures. Catastrophic events such as the multiple hurricanes 

 that occurred during 2005 – which can threaten institution stability – also 

 underscore the need for the Corporation’s readiness to respond. 

 Given the industry’s increase in merger and acquisition activity, banks are

 becoming more geographically diverse and complex, and institutions are

 much larger than they have been historically. As a result, the FDIC could

 potentially face the challenge of handling a failing institution with a significantly 

 larger number of insured deposits than it has had to in the past. The FDIC 

 Board is soliciting comments on proposed improvements to the process of 

 determining the insurance status of depositors of larger institutions in the 

 event of a failure to facilitate the related deposit insurance claims process. 

 The FDIC has also been developing a new claims determination system. 

 The Corporation’s ability to rapidly determine the insured status of deposit 

 accounts is essential to resolving bank failures in the most cost-effective 

 and least disruptive manner. 

130
Promoting Sound Governance The FDIC must practice sound governance and effectively manage and utilize a

and Managing and Protecting Human, number of critical strategic resources in order to carry out its mission successFinancial, Information Technology, fully, particularly its human, financial, information technology (IT), physical, and

Physical, and Procurement Resources procurement resources. The FDIC Board of Directors plays a critical role in this 

 regard, and FDIC management has emphasized its stewardship responsibilities 

 in its strategic planning process. A number of key management activities pose 

 challenges to corporate leadership and managers, as discussed below: 

 Corporate Governance and Enterprise Risk Management: 

 The FDIC is managed by a five-person Board of Directors, all of whom are 

 appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with no more than 

 three being from the same political party. At least one Board member must 

 have State bank supervisory experience. The Board includes the Directors 

 of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift 

 Supervision. Given the inevitability of relatively frequent changes in the 

 Board make-up, it is essential that a strong and sustainable governance

 process is in place and that Board members have and share the information 

 needed at all times to make sound policy and management decisions. 

 As an important part of its governance process, the FDIC has established 

 a risk management and internal control program. In the spirit of OMB 

 Circular A-123, the Corporation has committed to adopting an enterprise 

 risk management approach to identifying and analyzing risks on an integrated, 

 corporate-wide basis. Revised OMB Circular A-123, which became 

 effective for fiscal year 2006, requires a strengthened process for conducting

 management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over 

 financial reporting. The circular also emphasizes the need for agencies to 

 integrate and coordinate internal control assessments with other internal 

 control-related activities, and ensure that an appropriate balance exists 

 between the strength of controls and the relative risk associated with 

 particular programs and operations. 

 Human Capital Management:

 In the past several years, the FDIC has undergone significant restructuring

 and downsizing in response to changes in the industry, technological advances, 

 and business process improvements and, as with many government agencies, 

 the FDIC anticipates a high level of retirement in the next five years. Amidst 

 such change, the Corporation formulated a human capital strategy to guide 

 the FDIC through the rest of this decade. The FDIC Corporate University 

 was created to play a key role in training, developing, and maintaining a 

 highly skilled, professional workforce to carry out the FDIC mission. One 

 of the initiatives it sponsors is the Corporate Employee Program, designed 

 to help create a more adaptable permanent workforce that reflects a more 

 collaborative and corporate approach to meeting critical mission functions. 

 Additionally, developing new leaders and engaging in succession planning 

 pose a challenge. In this regard, the Corporation has developed an Executive 

 Candidate Development Program that it plans to pilot to identify high-potential 

 employees to develop for future executive management positions. The 

 Corporation also piloted a Talent Review Program this year that focused 

 on executive succession management needs and executive development 

 needs. Finally, in an age of identity theft risks, another challenge in human 

 capital management is to maintain effective controls to protect personal 

 employee-related information that the Corporation possesses. The appointment 

 of a chief privacy officer and implementation of a privacy program have been 

 positive steps in addressing that challenge.

131
 Financial Management:

 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. Because about 65 per-

 cent of the FDIC’s budget costs are personnel-related, a challenge to the 

 Corporation is to ensure that budgeted resources are properly aligned with 

 workload. The Board approved a $1.1 billion Corporate Operating Budget 

 for 2007, approximately 4.6 percent higher than for 2006. The approved 

 budget provides funding for additional compliance examiners, increased 

 employee training, enhanced IT security and privacy programs, and completion 

 of systems changes required to support the implementation of deposit 

 insurance reform. 

 With respect to capital investments, effective planning and management 

 of IT and non-IT capital investments are mandated by Congress and by the 

 Office of Management and Budget for most federal agencies. Although many

 of these laws and executive orders are not legally binding on the FDIC, the 

 Corporation recognizes that they constitute sound business practices and 

 has decided to voluntarily adopt them in whole, or in part. The underlying 

 financial management challenge facing the FDIC is to carry out approved 

 investment projects on time and within budget, while realizing anticipated 

 benefits. The Corporation’s 2007 spending on multi-year investment projects 

 separately approved by the Board is expected to be approximately $19 million 

 to $23 million.

 The Corporation is continuing to implement its New Financial Environment,

 intended to meet current and future financial management and financial 

 information needs; improve corporate financial business processes; and 

 redirect resources from transaction processing to analysis, risk management,

 and decision support.

 Information Technology Management:

 The FDIC seeks to maximize its IT resources to improve the efficiency and 

 effectiveness of its operational processes. The Corporation operates a nation-

 wide computing network and maintains more than 250 application systems 

 for staff to carry out their responsibilities. To address IT management challenges,

 the FDIC must focus on the capital planning and investment processes 

 for IT and maximize the effectiveness of the Chief Information Officer 

 Council and Program Management Office, both of which play a continuing 

 role in reviewing the portfolio of approved IT projects and other initiatives. 

 The Corporation has also employed a new system development life cycle 

 methodology to enhance its ability to effectively and efficiently manage 

 IT project resources. It must also continue to enhance its Enterprise 

 Architecture program by identifying duplicative resources/investments and 

 opportunities for internal and external collaboration to promote operational 

 improvements and cost-effective solutions to business requirements.

 The establishment of an integrated and streamlined e-government 

 infrastructure is a key component of the Corporation’s target EA. In this 

 regard, the Corporation has initiated a number of major projects designed 

 to improve internal operations, communications, and service to members 

 of the public, business, and other government entities. The challenge is to 

 ensure that such projects are consistent with e-government principles and 

 implementing guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.

132
 IT and Physical Security:

 To achieve its mission, the FDIC relies on automated information systems 

 to collect, process, and store vast amounts of banking and other sensitive 

 information. Much of this information is used by financial regulators, 

 academia, and the public to monitor bank performance, develop regulatory 

 policy, and to research and analyze important banking issues. Ensuring the 

 integrity, availability, and appropriate confidentiality of this information in 

 an environment of increasingly sophisticated security threats and global 

 connectivity requires a strong records management program and a 

 correspondingly effective enterprise-wide information security program.

 As a result of focused attention over the last several years, the FDIC has 

 made significant progress in improving its information security program and 

 practices. However, continued management attention is needed in certain

 key security control areas such as enterprise architecture, configuration 

 management, access controls, and audit and accountability controls.

 In light of past terrorist-related disruptions and, more recently, adverse 

 impacts of natural disasters, the importance of corporate disaster recovery 

 and business continuity planning has been underscored and elevated to 

 an enterprise-wide level. The FDIC must be sure that its emergency 

 response plans provide for the safety and physical security of its personnel 

 and ensure that its business continuity planning and disaster recovery

 capability keep critical business functions operational during any emergency. 

 Threats to public health such as a pandemic influenza could also put the 

 Corporation’s internal emergency preparedness to the test. In its role as a 

 regulator, the Corporation has also joined with the other financial regulatory 

 agencies in issuing an interagency advisory to financial institutions and their 

 technology service providers to raise awareness regarding the threat of a 

 pandemic influenza outbreak and its potential impact on the delivery of 

 critical financial services.

 Procurement Management:

 Over the past few years, the FDIC has increased its reliance on outsourcing

 for services such as IT infrastructure support, IT application system devel-

 opment, and facilities maintenance. As of March 2006, in fact, the value of 

 the FDIC’s active contracts totaled over $1.6 billion. The Corporation has also 

 downsized and reduced its contracting staff over the same time frame, 

 which has posed challenges to contract administration activities. Given this 

 environment, 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. Also, 

 a number of new contracting vehicles and approaches have been implemented. 

 For example, the Corporation combined approximately 40 IT-related contracts 

 into one contract with multiple vendors for a total program value of $555 million 

 over ten years. Also, for the first time, the FDIC is using a large technical 

 infrastructure contract through the General Services Administration (GSA) 

 valued at over $340 million. Along with the expected benefits of these 

 contracts come challenges. The Corporation has not previously outsourced 

 a procurement process to GSA, and both new contracts are performance-

 based, requiring different oversight mechanisms and strategies than the 

 time and materials contracts that the Corporation has historically used.

133
Cover Photograph and Book Design: FDIC/DOA/CSB/Graphic Design Unit

134
 Federal

 Deposit

 Insurance

 Corporation

This Annual Report was produced 

by talented and dedicated staff. 

To these individuals, we would 

like to offer our sincere thanks 

and appreciation. Special recognition 

is given to the following individuals 

for their contributions:

Sam Collicchio

Pearline Crosland

Jannie F. Eaddy

Barbara Glasby

Patricia Hughes

Mia Jordan

Robert Nolan

Michelle Watson 

2006