2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

127

app

6. Appendice

A. Key Sta

The FDICs Strategic Plan and Annual Performance 

Plan provide the basis for annual planning and budgeting 

for needed resources. The 2011 aggregate budget 

(for corporate, receivership, and investment spending) 

was $3.88 billion, while actual expenditures for the 

year were $2.83 billion, about $590 million less than 

2010 expenditures.

Over the past decade the FDIC’s expenditures have 

varied in response to workload. After peaking in 2010, 

expenditure levels subsided in 2011, largely due to 

decreasing resolution and receivership activity. 

$3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

FDIC Expenditures 2002-20

Dollars in Millio
app

128

FDIC Actions on Financial Institutions Applications 2009–201

2011 2010 2009

Deposit Insurance 10 16 19

Approved1 10 16 19

Denied 0 0 0

New Branches 442 461 521

Approved 442 459 521

Denied 0 2 0

Mergers 206 182 190

Approved 206 182 190

Denied 0 0 0

Requests for Consent to Serve2 876 839 503

Approved 875 839 503

Section 19 24 10 20

Section 32 851 829 483

Denied 1 0 0

Section 19 0 0 0

Section 32 1 0 0

Notices of Change in Control 21 33 18

Letters of Intent Not to Disapprove 21 33 18

Disapproved 0 0 0

Brokered Deposit Waivers 84 66 35

Approved 83 65 34

Denied 1 1 1

Savings Association Activities3 30 31 39

Approved 30 31 39

Denied 0 0 0

State Bank Activities/Investments4 9 3 2

Approved 9 3 2

Denied 0 0 0

Conversion of Mutual Institutions 6 2 6

Non-Objection 6 2 6

Objection 0 0 0

1 Includes deposit insurance application filed on behalf of: (1) newly organized institutions, (2) existing uninsured financial services companies seeking 

establishment as an insured institution, and (3) interim institutions established to facilitate merger or conversion transactions, and applications to 

facilitate the establishment of thrift holding companies.

2 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 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. 

3 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. 

4 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.
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

129

Appe

Compliance, Enforcement, and Other Related Legal Actions 2009–20

2011 2010 2009

Total Number of Actions Initiated by the FDIC 550 758 551

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 0 0 0

Sec. 8p No Deposits 7 4 4

Sec. 8q Deposits Assumed 2 1 2

Sec. 8b Cease-and-Desist Action

Notices of Charges Issued* 7 1 3

Consent Orders 183 372 302

Sec. 8e Removal/Prohibition of Director or Office

Notices of Intention to Remove/Prohibit 11 10 2

Consent Orders 100 111 64

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

Civil Money Penalties Issued

Sec. 7a Call Report Penalties 0 0 1

Sec. 8i Civil Money Penalties 193 212 154

Sec. 8i Civil Money Penalty Notices of Assessment 5 8 0

Sec. 10c Orders of Investigation 29 15 1

Sec. 19 Waiver Order

Approved Section 19 Waiver Orders 10 24 12

Denied Section 19 Waiver Orders 1 0 0

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

Truth-in-Lending Act Reimbursement Actions

Denials of Requests for Relief 0 0 0

Grants of Relief 0 0 0

Banks Making Reimbursement* 84 64 94

Suspicious Activity Reports (Open and closed institutions)* 125,460 126,098 128,973

Other Actions Not Listed 8 1 0

*These actions do not constitute the initiation of a formal enforcement action and, therefore, are not included in the total number of actions initiated.
app

130

Estimated Insured Deposits and the Deposit Insurance Fund, December 31, 19

through December 31, 201

Dolars in Millions (except Insu

Depo

Insured 

Insuran

a a Per

Y

Ins

Covera

Total 

Dep

Est. I

Depo

Percen

Insur

Dep

Dep

Insu

Fun

To

Dom

Dep

Est. I

Dep

2011 $250,000 $8,779,282 $6,979,126 79.5 $11,826.5 0.13 0.17

2010 250,000 7,887,732 6,315,302 80.1 (7,352.2) (0.09) (0.12)

2009 250,000 7,705,353 5,407,757 70.2 (20,861.8) (0.27) (0.39)

2008 100,000 7,505,409 4,750,783 63.3 17,276.3 0.23 0.36 

2007 100,000 6,921,678 4,292,211 62.0 52,413.0 0.76 1.22 

2006 100,000 6,640,097 4,153,808 62.6 50,165.3 0.76 1.21 

2005 100,000 6,229,823 3,891,000 62.5 48,596.6 0.78 1.25 

2004 100,000 5,724,775 3,622,213 63.3 47,506.8 0.83 1.31 

2003 100,000 5,224,030 3,452,606 66.1 46,022.3 0.88 1.33 

2002 100,000 4,916,200 3,383,720 68.8 43,797.0 0.89 1.29 

2001 100,000 4,565,068 3,216,585 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 
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

131

Appe

Estimated Insured Deposits and the Deposit Insurance Fund, December 31, 19

through December 31, 201

Dolars in Millions (except Insu

Depo

Insured 

Insuran

a a Per

Y

Ins

Covera

Total 

Dep

Est. I

Depo

Percen

Insur

Dep

Dep

Insu

Fun

To

Dom

Dep

Est. I

Dep

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 62.4 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 

CONTI
app

132

Estimated Insured Deposits and the Deposit Insurance Fund, December 31, 19

through December 31, 201

Dolars in Millions (except Insu

Depo

Insured 

Insuran

a a Per

Y

Ins

Covera

Total 

Dep

Est. I

Depo

Percen

Insur

Dep

Dep

Insu

Fun

To

Dom

Dep

Est. I

Dep

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 42.6 929.2 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 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) temporarily provides unlimited coverage for non-interest 

bearing transaction accounts for two years beginning December 31, 2010. Coverage limits do not reflect temporary increases authorized by the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Coverage for certain retirement accounts increased to $250,000 in 2006. Initial coverage limit was 

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

2 Beginning in the fourth quarter 2010, estimates of insured deposits include the Dodd-Frank Act temporary unlimited coverage for non-interest 

bearing transaction accounts. Prior to 1989, figures are for the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) only and exclude insured branches of foreign banks. 

For 1989 to 2005, figures represent sum of the BIF and Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) amounts; for 2006 to 2011, figures are for DIF. 

Amounts for 1989 - 2011 include insured branches of foreign banks. Prior to year-end 1991, insured deposits were estimated using percentages 

determined from June Call and Thrift Financial Reports.

CONTI
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

133

Appe

Income and Expenses, Deposit Insurance Fund, from Beginning of Operations, September 11, 193

through December 31, 201

Dol

Income Expenses

Year

Asse

Inco

Asse

Cre

Inve

and

Ef

Asse

Rate1 

Pr

f

Ins. L

Admi

an

Ope

Expen

Int

& O

 In

Expe

Fundi

Tr

from 

FSLIC 

Resol

Fun

Ne

Incom

(Los

Total $172,116.7 $115,379.3 $11,392.7 $68,718.9 $161,430.1 $130,481.0 $21,356.9 $9,592.2 $139.5 $10,826

2011 $16,342.0 13,499.5 0.9 2,843.4 0.1110% (2,915.4) (4,413.6) 1,625.4 (127.2) 0 19,257.4 

2010 13,379.9 13,611.2 0.8 (230.5) 0.1772% 75.0 (847.8) 1,592.6 (669.8) 0 13,304.9 

2009 24,706.4 17,865.4 148.0 6,989.0 0.2330% 60,709.0 57,711.8 1,271.1 1,726.1 0 (36,002.6)

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 3,494.8 1,885.0 0.0 1,609.8 0.0816% 4,352.2 3,811.3 219.9 321.0 5.6 (851.8)

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)
app

134

Income and Expenses, Deposit Insurance Fund, from Beginning of Operations, September 11, 193

through December 31, 201

Dol

Income Expenses

Year

Asse

Inco

Asse

Cre

Inve

and

Ef

Asse

Rate1 

Pr

f

Ins. L

Admi

an

Ope

Expen

Int

& O

 In

Expe

Fundi

Tr

from 

FSLIC 

Resol

Fun

Ne

Incom

(Los

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 

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% 65.7 10.1 49.6 6.05 0 401.3 

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 

CONTI
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

135

Appe

Income and Expenses, Deposit Insurance Fund, from Beginning of Operations, September 11, 193

through December 31, 201

Dol

Income Expenses

Year

Asse

Inco

Asse

Cre

Inve

and

Ef

Asse

Rate1 

Pr

f

Ins. L

Admi

an

Ope

Expen

Int

& O

 In

Expe

Fundi

Tr

from 

FSLIC 

Resol

Fun

Ne

Incom

(Los

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 

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 

CONTI
app

136

Income and Expenses, Deposit Insurance Fund, from Beginning of Operations, September 11, 193

through December 31, 201

Dol

Income Expenses

Year

Asse

Inco

Asse

Cre

Inve

and

Ef

Asse

Rate1 

Pr

f

Ins. L

Admi

an

Ope

Expen

Int

& O

 In

Expe

Fundi

Tr

from 

FSLIC 

Resol

Fun

Ne

Incom

(Los

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 reponsibility 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 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 the 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 the SAIF were lowered to the same range as the 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. On December 16, 2008, the FDIC Board of Directors (the “Board”) 

adopted a final rule to temporarily increase assessment rates for the first quarter of 2009 to a range of 0.12 percent to 0.50 percent of assessable deposits. 

On February 27, 2009, the Board adopted a final rule effective April 1, 2009, setting initial base assessment rates to a range of 0.12 percent to 0.45 percent of 

assessable deposits. On June 30, 2009, a special assessment was imposed on all insured banks and thrifts, which amounted in aggregate to approximately 

$5.4 billion. For 8,106 institutions, with $9.3 trillion in assets, the special assessment was 5 basis points of each institution’s assets minus tier one capital; 89 

other institutions, with assets of $4.0 trillion, had their special asssessment capped at 10 basis points of their second quarter assessment base.

2

 These expenses, which are presented as operating expenses in the Statement 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 Sheet. The narrative and graph presented in the “Corporate Planning and Budget” section of this 

report (page 127) 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 a $106 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 $81 million of interest paid on capital stock between 1933 and 1948.

CONTI
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

137

Appe

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

Closed Because of Financial Difficulties, 1989 through 1995

Dolars

Yer  Total 

Est

Recei

Los

Loss

Fund

Total 748 $393,986,574 $317,501,978 $75,979,051 $81,577,711 

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

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

1993 10 6,147,962 4,881,461 267,595 65,212 

1992 59 44,196,946 34,773,224 3,287,038 3,832,275 

1991 144 78,898,904 65,173,122 9,235,975 9,734,271 

1990 213 129,662,498 98,963,962 16,063,752 19,258,646 

19894 318 134,519,630 113,168,009 47,085,027 48,644,958 

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.
app

138

FDIC-Insured Institutions Closed During 20

Dolars

Codes for Ba

NM = State-chartered bank that is not a member of the 

Federal Reserve System 

N = National Bank

SB = Savings Bank

SI = Stock and Mutual 

Savings Bank

SM = State-chartered bank that is a member 

of the Federal Reserve System

SA = Savings Association

Name and 

Ba

C

Numb

o

Dep

Acc

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insur

Deposit F

and

Disb

Esti

Loss 

the D

Dat

Clo

 o

Acqu

Receiver/A

Bank and

Purchase and Assumption – All Deposits

The First National Bank 

of Davis

Davis, OK

N 2,334 $90,183 $68,331 $117,515 $25,925 03/11/11 The Pauls Valley 

National Bank

Pauls Valley, OK

Whole Bank Purchase and Assumption – All Deposits

First Commercial Bank 

of Florida 

Orlando, FL

SM 14,657 $578,638 $537,223 $532,370 $113,687 01/07/11 First Southern Bank

Boca Raton, FL

Legacy Bank

Scottsdale, AZ

NM 1,262 $136,446 $119,685 $115,300 $39,529 01/07/11 Enterprise Bank and Trust

St. Louis, MO

Oglethorpe Bank

Brunswick, GA

NM 8,414 $211,149 $201,369 $199,988 $77,875 01/14/11 Bank of the Ozarks

Little Rock, AR

Community South Bank 

and Trust

Easley, SC

NM 13,832 $340,986 $314,250 $321,432 $65,732 01/21/11 CertusBank, 

National Association

Easley, SC

The Bank of Asheville

Asheville, NC

NM 10,489 $204,925 $199,394 $194,360 $58,361 01/21/11 First Bank

Troy, NC

United Western Bank

Denver, CO

SA 6,388 $2,153,690 $1,535,194 $1,628,067 $372,785 01/21/11 First-Citizens Bank and 

Trust Company

Raleigh, NC

Evergreen State Bank

Stoughton, WI

NM 7,084 $240,949 $193,694 $193,625 $37,690 01/28/11 MacFarland State Bank

McFarland, WI

First Community Bank

Taos, NM

SM 81,640 $2,188,154 $1,847,851 $1,815,138 $299,150 01/28/11 U.S. Bank, National 

Association

Minneapolis, MN

First State Bank

Camargo, OK

NM 1,528 $44,546 $41,204 $43,105 $35,122 01/28/11 Bank 7

Oklahoma City, OK

American Trust Bank

Roswell, GA

NM 4,260 $238,205 $222,161 $225,382 $79,591 02/04/11 Renasant Bank

Tupelo, MS

Community First Bank

Chicago, IL

SM 1,404 $51,083 $49,504 $50,032 $17,456 02/04/11 Northbrook Bank and 

Trust Company

Northbrook, IL
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

139

Appe

FDIC-Insured Institutions Closed During 20

Dolars

Codes for Ba

NM = State-chartered bank that is not a member of the 

Federal Reserve System 

N = National Bank

SB = Savings Bank

SI = Stock and Mutual 

Savings Bank

SM = State-chartered bank that is a member 

of the Federal Reserve System

SA = Savings Association

Name and 

Ba

C

Numb

o

Dep

Acc

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insur

Deposit F

and

Disb

Esti

Loss 

the D

Dat

Clo

 o

Acqu

Receiver/A

Bank and

North Georgia Bank

Watkinsville, GA

NM 3,833 $153,172 $139,672 $137,002 $54,619 02/04/11 BankSouth

Greensboro, GA

Badger State Bank

Cassville, WI

NM 5,386 $83,828 $78,549 $77,786 $20,798 02/11/11 Royal Bank

Elroy, WI

Canyon National Bank

Palm Springs, CA

N 9,588 $210,859 $205,285 $205,839 $19,065 02/11/11 Pacific Premier Bank

Costa Mesa, CA

Peoples State Bank

Hamtramck, MI

NM 21,775 $390,524 $389,868 $388,437 $134,570 02/11/11 First Michigan Bank

Troy, MI

Sunshine State 

Community Bank

Port Orange, FL

NM 8,387 $125,531 $116,715 $111,658 $34,884 02/11/11 Premier American 

Bank, N.A.

Miami, FL

Charter Oak Bank

Napa, CA

NM 2,416 $120,833 $105,309 $100,297 $25,905 02/18/11 Bank of Marin

Novato, CA

Citizens Bank of Effingham

Springfield, GA

NM 11,329 $214,275 $206,490 $208,501 $55,387 02/18/11 HeritageBank of the South

Albany, GA

Habersham Bank

Clarkesville, GA

NM 21,586 $387,681 $339,934 $342,242 $121,456 02/18/11 SCBT National Association

Orangeburg, SC

San Luis Trust Bank, FSB

San Luis Obispo, CA

SA 3,993 $332,596 $272,216 $272,049 $96,403 02/18/11 First California Bank

Westlake Village, CA

Valley Community Bank

St. Charles, IL

NM 6,176 $123,774 $124,179 $123,022 $30,277 02/25/11 First State Bank

Mendota, IL

Legacy Bank

Milwaukee, WI

SM 4,761 $190,418 $183,309 $199,694 $53,309 03/11/11 Seaway Bank and 

Trust Company

Chicago, IL

The Bank of Commerce

Wood Dale, IL

NM 3,139 $163,074 $161,379 $165,795 $47,322 03/25/11 Advantage National 

Bank Group

Elk Grove Village, IL

Nevada Commerce Bank

Las Vegas, NV NM 1,601 $135,064 $128,573 $130,778 $39,818 04/08/11

City National Bank

Los Angeles, CA

Western Springs National 

Bank and Trust

Western Springs, IL

N 6,870 $186,677 $182,441 $185,555 $32,523 04/08/11 Heartland Bank and 

Trust Company

Bloomington, IL

CONTI
app

140

FDIC-Insured Institutions Closed During 20

Dolars

Codes for Ba

NM = State-chartered bank that is not a member of the 

Federal Reserve System 

N = National Bank

SB = Savings Bank

SI = Stock and Mutual 

Savings Bank

SM = State-chartered bank that is a member 

of the Federal Reserve System

SA = Savings Association

Name and 

Ba

C

Numb

o

Dep

Acc

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insur

Deposit F

and

Disb

Esti

Loss 

the D

Dat

Clo

 o

Acqu

Receiver/A

Bank and

Bartow County Bank

Cartersville, GA

NM 20,216 $314,019 $290,005 $290,241 $78,302 04/15/11 Hamilton State Bank

Hoschton, GA

Heritage Banking Group

Carthage, MS

NM 11,820 $228,328 $205,035 $205,753 $57,429 04/15/11 Trustmark National Bank

Jackson, MS

New Horizons Bank

East Ellijay, GA

NM 3,251 $103,055 $99,022 $99,562 $37,622 04/15/11 Citizens South Bank

Gastonia, NC

Nexity Bank

Birmingham, AL

NM 11,141 $757,574 $611,681 $609,677 $196,204 04/15/11 Alostar Bank of Commerce

Birmingham, AL

Rosemount National Bank

Rosemount, MN

N 2,887 $21,454 $20,980 $22,899 $8,986 04/15/11 Central Bank

Stillwater, MN

Superior Bank

Birmingham, AL

SA 110,217 $2,977,290 $2,736,201 $2,752,261 $276,107 04/15/11 Superior Bank, N.A.

Birmingham, AL

Community Central Bank

Mount Clemens, MI

NM 9,558 $451,683 $371,494 $359,734 $191,415 04/29/11 Talmer Bank & Trust

Troy, MI

Cortez Community Bank

Brooksville, FL

NM 2,751 $66,282 $65,439 $66,587 $26,709 04/29/11 Premier American 

Bank, N.A.

Miami, FL

First Choice Community Bank

Dallas, GA

NM 11,419 $291,196 $294,769 $295,306 $100,197 04/29/11 Bank of the Ozarks

Little Rock, AR

First National Bank of 

Central Florida

Winter Park, FL

N 7,247 $342,079 $308,784 $306,179 $53,519 04/29/11 Premier American 

Bank, N.A.

Miami, FL

The Park Avenue Bank

Valdosta, GA

SM 38,484 $849,409 $724,483 $694,752 $326,980 04/29/11 Bank of the Ozarks

Little Rock, AR

Coastal Bank

Cocoa Beach, FL

SA 3,880 $129,429 $123,950 $124,171 $20,561 05/06/11 Premier American 

Bank, N.A.

Miami, FL

Atlantic Southern Bank

Macon, GA

NM 22,000 $741,855 $707,643 $680,442 $279,539 05/20/11 CertusBank, N.A.

Easley, SC

First Georgia Banking Co.

Franklin, GA

NM 27,959 $730,981 $702,231 $672,275 $177,408 05/20/11 CertusBank, N.A.

Easley, SC

CONTI
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

141

Appe

FDIC-Insured Institutions Closed During 20

Dolars

Codes for Ba

NM = State-chartered bank that is not a member of the 

Federal Reserve System 

N = National Bank

SB = Savings Bank

SI = Stock and Mutual 

Savings Bank

SM = State-chartered bank that is a member 

of the Federal Reserve System

SA = Savings Association

Name and 

Ba

C

Numb

o

Dep

Acc

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insur

Deposit F

and

Disb

Esti

Loss 

the D

Dat

Clo

 o

Acqu

Receiver/A

Bank and

Summit Bank

Burlington, WA

NM 4,495 $142,729 $131,631 $127,373 $21,969 05/20/11 Columbia State Bank

Tacoma, WA

First Heritage Bank

Snohomish, WA

NM 9,427 $173,478 $163,303 $161,772 $41,368 05/27/11 Columbia State Bank

Tacoma, WA

Atlantic Bank and Trust

Charleston, SC

SA 3,996 $208,204 $191,614 $185,844 $44,145 06/03/11 First Citizens Bank and 

Trust Company, Inc.

Columbia, SC

First Commercial Bank of 

Tampa Bay

Tampa, FL

NM 2,163 $98,624 $92,641 $92,400 $34,940 06/17/11 Stonegate Bank

Fort Lauderdale, FL

McIntosh State Bank

Jackson, GA

NM 20,633 $339,929 $324,403 $312,588 $87,540 06/17/11 Hamilton State Bank

Hoschton, GA

Mountain Heritage Bank

Clayton, GA

NM 2,779 $103,716 $89,554 $91,032 $45,738 06/24/11 First American Bank and 

Trust Company

Athens, GA

Colorado Capital Bank

Castle Rock, CO

NM 7,078 $665,806 $635,202 $628,260 $287,099 07/08/11 First-Citizens Bank & 

Trust Company

Raleigh, NC

First Chicago Bank 

and Trust

Chicago, IL

SM 17,859 $896,864 $830,530 $834,519 $275,894 07/08/11 Northbrook Bank & 

Trust Company

Northbrook, IL

Signature Bank

Windsor, CO

NM 2,723 $62,518 $60,349 $61,752 $26,373 07/08/11 Points West 

Community Bank

Julesburg, CO

First Peoples Bank

Port Saint Lucie, FL

NM 8,323 $225,035 $207,621 $214,077 $12,387 07/15/11 Florida Community 

Bank, N.A.

Miami, FL

High Trust Bank

Stockbridge, GA

NM 2,440 $180,340 $177,221 $177,388 $70,381 07/15/11 Ameris Bank

Moultrie, GA

One Georgia Bank

Atlanta, GA

NM 1,861 $177,715 $158,123 $157,917 $48,939 07/15/11 Ameris Bank

Moultrie, GA

Summit Bank

Prescott, AZ

NM 2,455 $73,066 $67,471 $68,365 $15,428 07/15/11 The Foothills Bank

Yuma, AZ

CONTI
app

142

FDIC-Insured Institutions Closed During 20

Dolars

Codes for Ba

NM = State-chartered bank that is not a member of the 

Federal Reserve System 

N = National Bank

SB = Savings Bank

SI = Stock and Mutual 

Savings Bank

SM = State-chartered bank that is a member 

of the Federal Reserve System

SA = Savings Association

Name and 

Ba

C

Numb

o

Dep

Acc

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insur

Deposit F

and

Disb

Esti

Loss 

the D

Dat

Clo

 o

Acqu

Receiver/A

Bank and

Bank of Choice

Greeley, CO

NM 33,194 $954,106 $818,670 $812,887 $216,810 07/22/11 Bank Midwest, N.A.

Kansas City, MO

Landmark Bank of Florida

Sarasota, FL

SM 7,972 $266,482 $244,362 $238,884 $38,542 07/22/11 American Momentum Bank

Tampa, FL

Southshore Community Bank

Apollo Beach, FL

NM 1,337 $41,252 $41,434 $42,091 $12,515 07/22/11 American Momentum Bank

Tampa, FL

BankMeridian, N.A.

Columbia, SC

N 3,650 $232,648 $209,737 $206,959 $69,114 07/29/11 SCBT National Association

Orangeburg, SC

Integra Bank, N.A.

Evansville, IN

N 140,008 $1,994,430 $1,693,592 $2,219,143 $205,874 07/29/11 Old National Bank

Evansville, IN

Virginia Business Bank

Richmond, VA

SM 581 $83,493 $72,955 $78,785 $21,523 07/29/11 Xenith Ban

Richmond, VA

Bank of Shorewood

Shorewood, IL

NM 6,681 $110,723 $104,021 $106,460 $29,692 08/05/11 Heartland Bank & 

Trust Company

Bloomington, IL

Bank of Whitman

Colfax, WA

SM 23,299 $548,570 $515,732 $498,979 $135,323 08/05/11 Columbia State Bank

Tacoma, WA

First National Bank of Olathe

Olathe, KS

N 27,367 $538,091 $524,290 $511,819 $119,472 08/12/11 Enterprise Bank & Trust

Clayton, MO

Public Savings Bank

Huntingdon Valley, PA

SB 904 $46,818 $45,770 $48,185 $14,982 08/18/11 Capital Bank, N.A.

Rockville, MD

First Choice Bank

Geneva, IL

NM 3,221 $141,016 $137,215 $131,111 $35,184 08/19/11 Inland Bank & Trust

Oak Brook, IL

First Southern National Bank

Stateboro, GA

N 8,873 $164,599 $159,673 $147,285 $43,901 08/19/11 Heritage Bank of the South

Albany, GA

Lydian Private Bank

Palm Beach, FL

SA 26,875 $1,700,117 $1,253,835 $1,277,109 $292,057 08/19/11 Sabadell United Bank, N.A.

Miami, FL

Creekside Bank

Woodstock, GA

NM 2,204 $102,338 $96,583 $98,591 $32,227 09/02/11 Georgia Commerce Bank

Atlanta, GA

Patriot Bank of Georgia

Cumming, GA

NM 2,468 $150,751 $140,612 $136,077 $48,986 09/02/11 Georgia Commerce Bank

Atlanta, GA

CONTI
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

143

Appe

FDIC-Insured Institutions Closed During 20

Dolars

Codes for Ba

NM = State-chartered bank that is not a member of the 

Federal Reserve System 

N = National Bank

SB = Savings Bank

SI = Stock and Mutual 

Savings Bank

SM = State-chartered bank that is a member 

of the Federal Reserve System

SA = Savings Association

Name and 

Ba

C

Numb

o

Dep

Acc

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insur

Deposit F

and

Disb

Esti

Loss 

the D

Dat

Clo

 o

Acqu

Receiver/A

Bank and

The First National Bank 

of Florida

Milton, FL

N 12,096 $296,841 $280,095 $248,052 $50,203 09/09/11 CharterBank

West Point, GA

Bank of the Commonwealth

Norfolk, VA

SM 20,383 $985,096 $901,845 $864,974 $268,111 09/23/11 Southern Bank & 

Trust Company

Mount Olive, NC

Citizens Bank of 

Northern California

Nevada City, CA

NM 16,248 $288,765 $253,079 $241,383 $41,053 09/23/11 Tri Counties Bank

Chico, CA

First International Bank

Plano, T

NM 9,148 $239,916 $208,775 $205,505 $57,644 09/30/11 American First 

National Bank

Houston, T

The RiverBank

Wyoming, MN

NM 31,327 $419,723 $384,120 $385,166 $74,971 10/07/11 Central Bank

Stillwater, MN

Sun Security Bank

Ellington, MO

NM 19,213 $351,492 $280,649 $282,436 $121,734 10/07/11 Great Southern Bank

Springfield, MO

Blue Ridge Savings 

Bank, Inc.

Asheville, NC

SB 5,503 $161,430 $159,628 $161,760 $41,985 10/14/11 Bank of North Carolina

Thomasville, NC

Country Bank

Aledo, IL

NM 6,476 $195,034 $180,835 $180,555 $67,225 10/14/11 Blackhawk Bank & Trust

Milan, IL

First State Bank

Cranford, NJ

NM 3,883 $191,852 $188,099 $190,497 $49,650 10/14/11 Northfield Bank

Staten Island, NY

Piedmont Community Bank

Gray, GA

NM 5,022 $198,993 $178,773 $177,419 $75,872 10/14/11 State Bank & 

Trust Company

Macon, GA

Community Banks 

of Colorado

Greenwood Village, CO

SM 52,119 $1,280,964 $1,239,630 $1,217,323 $227,340 10/21/11 Bank Midwest, N.A.

Kansas City, MO

Community Capital Bank

Jonesboro, GA

NM 4,032 $165,291 $157,808 $157,578 $66,293 10/21/11 State Bank & 

Trust Company

Macon, GA

Decatur First Bank

Decatur, GA

NM 8,213 $184,750 $172,042 $171,399 $36,898 10/21/11 Fidelity Bank

Atlanta, GA

CONTI
app

144

FDIC-Insured Institutions Closed During 20

Dolars

Codes for Ba

NM = State-chartered bank that is not a member of the 

Federal Reserve System 

N = National Bank

SB = Savings Bank

SI = Stock and Mutual 

Savings Bank

SM = State-chartered bank that is a member 

of the Federal Reserve System

SA = Savings Association

Name and 

Ba

C

Numb

o

Dep

Acc

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insur

Deposit F

and

Disb

Esti

Loss 

the D

Dat

Clo

 o

Acqu

Receiver/A

Bank and

Old Harbor Bank

Clearwater, FL

NM 7,506 $209,048 $212,184 $211,246 $43,507 10/21/11 1st United Bank

Boca Raton, FL

All American Bank

Des Plaines, IL

NM 1,341 $34,800 $30,542 $32,075 $11,594 10/28/11 International Bank 

of Chicago

Chicago, IL

Mid City Bank, Inc.

Omaha, NE

NM 6,638 $106,075 $105,461 $102,662 $17,390 11/04/11 Premier Bank

Purdum, NE

SunFirst Bank

Saint George, UT

NM 4,862 $198,081 $169,135 $150,980 $53,230 11/04/11 Cache Valley Bank

Logan, UT

Community Bank 

of Rockmart

Rockmart, GA

NM 2,567 $62,383 $55,906 $57,481 $18,898 11/11/11 Century Bank of Georgia

Cartersville, GA

Central Progressive Bank

Lacombe, LA

NM 26,761 $383,132 $347,720 $346,598 $61,919 11/18/11 First NBC Bank

New Orleans, LA

Polk County Bank

Johnston, IA

NM 7,112 $91,580 $81,967 $82,181 $17,339 11/18/11 Grinnell State Bank

Grinnell, IA

Premier Community Bank 

of the Emerald Coast

Crestview, FL

NM 2,782 $125,976 $112,050 $111,322 $35,512 12/16/11 Summit Bank, N.A.

Panama City, FL

Western National Bank

Phoenix, AZ

N 2,678 $162,872 $144,491 $145,903 $42,869 12/16/11 Washington Federal

Seattle, WA

Insured Deposit Transfer/Purchase & Assumption

Enterprise Banking Co.

McDonough, GA

NM 2,173 $99,461 $94,591 $106,020 $44,600 01/21/11 Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation

FirsTier Bank

Louisville, CO

NM 10,399 $764,090 $718,797 $768,384 $270,815 01/28/11 Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation

1

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

2

 Estimated losses are as of 12/31/11. Estimated losses are routinely adjusted with updated information from new appraisals and asset sales, which ultimately 

affect the asset values and projected recoveries. Represents the estimated loss to the DIF from deposit insurance obligations. This amount does not include 

the estimated loss allocable to the Transaction Account Guarantee and Debt Guarantee Program claims.

CONTI
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

145

Appe

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

1934 - 2011 

Dolars 

Bank and Thrift Failures1

Yea

Number

Bank

T

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insured 

Funding

O

Disburseme

Est

Addi

Recov

Est

Los

2,509 $914,003,552 $685,069,066 $561,016,616 $390,577,746 $48,373,749 $122,065,121 

2011 92 34,922,997 31,071,862 31,531,359 910,708 22,675,379 7,945,272 

20104 157 92,084,987 79,548,141 82,172,287 49,268,600 9,999,848 22,903,839 

20094 140 169,709,160 137,067,132 135,863,380 85,330,857 11,800,273 38,732,250 

20084 25 371,945,480 234,321,715 205,431,491 182,605,479 2,651,137 20,174,875 

2007 3 2,614,928 2,424,187 1,917,408 1,368,679 343,954 204,775 

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2004 4 170,099 156,733 138,912 134,978 17 3,917 

2003 3 947,317 901,978 883,772 812,933 8,192 62,647 

2002 11 2,872,720 2,512,834 2,126,922 1,689,034 68,928 368,960 

2001 4 1,821,760 1,661,214 1,605,191 1,128,577 180,378 296,236 

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

1999 8 1,592,189 1,320,573 1,307,226 711,758 4,584 590,884 

1998 3 290,238 260,675 292,686 58,248 11,608 222,830 

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 14,540,882 10,866,745 110 3,674,027 

1991 124 64,556,512 52,972,034 21,499,236 15,656,282 629,341 5,213,613 

1990 168 16,923,462 15,124,454 10,812,484 8,040,995 0 2,771,489 

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 5,055,158 0 5,377,497 

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 
app

146

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

1934 - 2011 

Dolars 

Bank and Thrift Failures1

Yea

Number

Bank

T

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insured 

Funding

O

Disburseme

Est

Addi

Recov

Est

Los

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

CONTI
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

147

Appe

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

1934 - 2011 

Dolars 

Bank and Thrift Failures1

Yea

Number

Bank

T

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insured 

Funding

O

Disburseme

Est

Addi

Recov

Est

Los

154 $3,317,099,253 $1,442,173,417 $11,630,356 $6,199,875 $0 $5,430,481 

20115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20095 8 1,917,482,183 1,090,318,282 0 0 0 0 

20085 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 

Assistance Transactions

CONTI
app

148

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

1934 - 2011 

Dolars 

Bank and Thrift Failures1

Yea

Number

Bank

T

To

Ass

To

Depo

Insured 

Funding

O

Disburseme

Est

Addi

Recov

Est

Los

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 Institutions closed by the FDIC, including deposit payoff, insured deposit transfer, and deposit assumption cases.

2 For 1990 through 2005, amounts represent the sum of BIF and SAIF failures (excluding those handled by the RTC); prior to1990, figures are only for the 

BIF. After 1995, all thrift closings became the responsibility of the FDIC and amounts are reflected in the SAIF. For 2006 to 2011, figures are for the DIF.

3 Assets and deposit data are based on the last Call Report or TFR filed before failure.

4 Includes amounts related to transaction account coverage under the Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAG). The estimated losses as of 12/31/10 

for TAG accounts in 2010, 2009, and 2008 are $571 million, $1,639 million, and $19 million, respectively.

5 Includes institutions where assistance was provided under a systemic risk determination. Any costs that exceed the amounts estimated under the least 

cost resolution requirement would be recovered through a special assessment on all FDIC-insured institutions.

Assistance Transactions

CONTI
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

149

Appe

Martin J. Gruenber

Martin J. Gruenberg became the Acting Chairman of 

the FDIC upon the resignation of Chairman Sheila C. 

Bair on July 8, 2011. Mr. 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 also 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. 

B. More 

FDIC Board of Directors

Seated (left to right): John Walsh, Martin J. Gruenberg, Thomas J. Curry
app

150

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. Mr. Curry served as Chairman 

of the FDIC’s Assessment Appeals Committee and Case 

Review Committee. He also served as Chairman of the 

Audit Committee and the Supervision Appeals Review 

Committee for the latter half of 2011 and into 2012. 

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. 

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. 

John Walsh

John Walsh became Acting Comptroller of the Office of 

the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) on August 15, 

2010. He also served on the FDIC Board of Directors 

and as a board member of NeighborWorks®America. Mr. 

Walsh joined the OCC in October 2005 and previously 

served as Chief of Staff and Public Affairs.

Prior to joining the OCC, Mr. Walsh was the Executive 

Director of the Group of Thirty, a consultative group that 

focuses on international economic and monetary affairs. 

He joined the Group in 1992, and became Executive 

Director in 1995. Mr. Walsh served on the Senate Banking 

Committee from 1986 to 1992, and as an international 

economist for the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 

1984 to 1986. Mr. Walsh also served with the Office of 

Management and Budget as an international program 

analyst, with the Mutual Broadcasting System, and in the 

U.S. Peace Corps in Ghana. 

Mr. Walsh holds a masters’ degree in public policy from 

the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 

(1978), and graduated magna cum laude from the 

University of Notre Dame in 1973. He lives in Catonsville, 

Maryland, and is married with four children. 

Subsequent Events Affecting the 

FDIC Board of Directors

The following events occurred after year-end 2011. On 

January 4, 2012, Richard Cordray was sworn in as the first 

Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 

and joined the FDIC Board of Directors. On April 9, 2012, 

Thomas Curry was sworn in as the 30th Comptroller 

of the Currency, succeeding John Walsh, and remains a 

Board member. On April 16, 2012, Thomas Hoenig and 

Jeremiah Norton were sworn in as internal members of 

the Board. 
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

151

Appe

FDIC Organization

As of December 31,

Division of Financ

cr

Director

Division of Informatio

Technology

r

Director

Office of Enterprise 

Risk Managemen

james

Director

Division of Administration

al

Director

Office of Legislative Affairs

Director

Legal Division

mc

General Counsel

Corporate Universit

t

Chief Learning Officer 

& Director

Office of the Ombudsman

c

Ombudsman

Chief Risk Office

Stph

Office of Inspector Gener

jon

Inspector General

Office of Public Affairs

an

Director

Deputy to the Chairma

kymb

(Acting)

Office of Minority an

Women Inclusi

d

Director

Special Adviso

jesse

Deputy to the Chairman an

Chief Financial Offic

Steve

Office of Comple

Financial Institutio

ja

Director

Division of Depositor

and Consumer Protectio

ma

Director

Division of Risk

Management Supervisi

s

Director

Division of Insurance

and Research

ar

Director

Division of Resolutions 

and Receiverships

b

Director

Office of 

International Affair

f

Director

General Couns

mc

Deputy to the Chairman for

External Affairs

p

Board of Director

ma

tho

jo

Office of the Chairma

ma

Acting Chairman

Vice Chairma

ma

Deputy to the Chairman for

Resolution and Legal Policy

Chief of Sta

ba

Internal Ombudsma

joa

(Detail)

Senior Adviso

el

Chief Information Office

Chief Privacy Office

r
app

152

9,000

6,000

3,000

0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

FDIC Year End Staffing 5,430 5,311 5,078 4,514 4,476 4,532 4,988 6,557 8,150 7,973

Corporate Staffing

Staffing Trends 2002-2011

Note: 2008-2011 staffing totals reflect year-end full time equivalent staff. Prior to 2008, staffing totals reflect total employees on board.
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

153

Appe

Number of Employees by Division/Office 2010 and 2011 (Year-

Divis

Total Washingt

2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010

Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection 0 3,648 0 378 0 3,270

Division of Risk Management Supervision 2,900 0 168 0 2,732 0

Division of Depositor and 

Consumer Protection

819 1 95 1 724 0

Subtotal Supervision and Consumer 

Protection Divisio

3,719 3,649 263 379 3,456 3,270

Division of Resolutions and Receiverships 1,811 2,109 139 154 1,672 1,955

Legal Division 774 805 354 352 420 453

Division of Administration 431 430 243 265 188 165

Division of Information Technology 354 328 271 245 83 83

Corporate University 176 207 163 199 13 8

Division of Insurance and Research 185 203 134 173 51 30

Division of Finance 163 165 158 165 5 0

Office of Inspector General 117 128 77 92 40 36

Office of Complex Financial Institutions 115 1 64 1 51 0

Executive Offices2 55 55 55 55 0 0

Office of the Ombudsman 29 31 12 12 17 19

Office of Minority and Women Inclusion3 30 26 30 26 0 0

Office of Enterprise Risk Management 14 13 14 13 0 0

Total 7,973 8,150 1,977 2,131 5,996 6,019

1

 The FDIC reports staffing totals using a full-time equivalent (FTE) methodology, which is based on an employee’s scheduled work hours. Division/Office 

staffing has been rounded to the nearest whole FTE.

2

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

Legislative Affairs, Public Affairs, International Affairs, Corporate Risk Management and External Affairs.

3 Previously the Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity. 

 

 
app

154

FDIC 

www.fdic.gov

A wide range of banking, consumer and financial 

information is available on the FDIC’s website. This 

includes the FDIC’s Electronic Deposit Insurance 

Estimator (EDIE), which estimates an individual's deposit 

insurance coverage; the Institution Directory, which 

contains financial profiles of FDIC-insured institutions; 

Community Reinvestment Act evaluations and ratings for 

institutions supervised by the FDIC; Call Reports, which 

are 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. 

FD

Phone: 877-275-3342 (877-ASK-FD

703-562-2222 

Hearing Impaired: 

 703-562-2289 

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 subjectmatter 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 refers callers to other federal and state 

agencies as needed. Hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 

8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday – Friday, and 9:00 a.m. 

to 5:00 p.m., Saturday – Sunday. Recorded information 

about deposit insurance and other topics is available 

twenty-four hours a day at the same telephone number.

As a customer service, the FDIC Call Center has 

many bilingual Spanish agents on staff and has access 

to a translation service able to assist with over forty 

different languages.

Public In

3501 Fairfax Drive

Room E-1021

Arlington, VA 22226

Phone: 877-275-3342 (877-ASK-F

703-562-2200

Fax: 703-562-229

FDIC Onli

https://vcart.velocitypayment.com/fdic/

E-mail: publicinfo@fdic

Publications such as FDIC Quarterly, Consumer News, and a 

variety of deposit insurance and consumer pamphlets are 

available at www.fdic.gov or may be ordered in hard copy 

through the FDIC online catalog. Other information, 

press releases, speeches and congressional testimony, 

directives to financial institutions, policy manuals, and 

FDIC documents are available on request through the 

Public Information Center. Hours of operation are 9:00 

a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday – Friday.

Office of the O

3501 Fairfax Drive

Room E-2022

Arlington, VA 22226

Phone: 877-275-3342 (877-ASK-FD

Fax: 703-562-605

E-mail: ombudsman@fdic

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 fields 

complaints from bankers and bank customers. OO 

representatives are present at all bank closings to 

provide accurate information to bank customers, the 

media, bank employees, and the general public. The OO 

also recommends ways to improve FDIC operations, 

regulations, and customer service.

Sources 
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

155

Appe

n Atlanta Reg

10 Tenth Street, NE

Suite 800 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(678) 916-2200

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Virginia

West Virginia

n Chicago Region

300 South Riverside Plaza

Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 382-6000

Illinois 

Indiana

Kentucky

Michigan

Ohio

Wisconsin

n Dallas Regio

1601 Bryan Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 754-0098

Colorado

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

n Memphis Area

5100 Poplar Avenue

Suite 1900

Memphis, Tennessee 38137

(901) 685-1603

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Tennessee

n Kansas City Reg

1100 Walnut Street

Suite 2100

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

(816) 234-8000

Iowa

Kansas

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

North Dakota

South Dakota 

Reginal and 
app

156

n New York Regio

350 Fifth Avenue

Suite 1200

New York, New York 10118

(917) 320-2500

Delaware

District of Columbia

Maryland

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

n Boston Are

15 Braintree Hill Office Park 

Suite 100

Braintree, Massachusetts 02184

(781) 794-5500

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

n an FrancisCo 

25 Jessie Street at Ecker Square

Suite 2300

San Francisco, California 94105

(415) 546-0160

Alaska

Arizona

California

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

Oregon

Utah

Washington

Wyoming
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

157

Appe

C. Office of Ins

Assessment of 

Performance Chal

Under the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the 

Office of Inspector General (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 the FDIC’s 

annual performance and accountability report. The 

OIG conducts this assessment annually and identifies 

specific areas of challenge facing the Corporation 

at the time. In identifying the challenges, the OIG 

keeps in mind the Corporation’s overall program and 

operational responsibilities; financial industry, economic, 

and technological conditions and trends; areas of 

congressional interest and concern; relevant laws and 

regulations; the Chairman’s priorities and corresponding 

corporate goals; and the ongoing activities to address the 

issues involved. 

In looking at the recent past and the current environment 

and anticipating—to the extent possible—what the future 

holds, the OIG believes that the FDIC faces challenges 

in the areas listed below. While the Corporation will 

sustain its efforts to maintain public confidence and 

stability, particularly as it continues to implement key 

provisions and authorities of the Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), 

challenges will persist in other areas as well. We note in 

particular that the Corporation is continuing to carry 

out a massive resolution and receivership workload and 

at the same time is assuming a new resolution authority. 

Concurrently, the FDIC faces challenges in meeting its 

deposit insurance responsibilities, supervising financial 

institutions, protecting consumers, and managing its 

workforce and other corporate resources. It is conducting 

all of these activities in a corporate environment that has 

substantially changed over the past year and one that 

remains in constant flux. 

As the FDIC and the banking industry emerge from 

the most severe crisis since the 1930s, the Corporation 

can take pride in having helped restore stability and 

confidence in the nation’s banking system. It has 

completed or sustained a number of new initiatives, 

responded to new demands, and played a key part in 

shaping bank regulation for the post-crisis period. Passage 

of the Dodd-Frank Act has presented new opportunities 

and challenges for the FDIC in its efforts to restore the 

vitality and stability of the financial system, and the 

Corporation has met these head-on. Perhaps the biggest 

uncertainty, and the backdrop against which the FDIC 

will operate going forward, is whether the U.S. economy 

can sustain current economic growth and what impact the 

outlook in Europe will have on the banking and financial 

services industry in the months ahead.

CARRYING OUT NEW RESOLUTION

Reforms under the Dodd-Frank Act involve far-reaching 

changes designed to restore market discipline, internalize 

the costs of risk-taking, protect consumers, and make 

the regulatory process more attuned to systemic risks. 

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Financial Stability 

Oversight Council (FSOC), of which the FDIC is a voting 

member. The FSOC monitors sources of systemic risk and 

promulgates rules that will be implemented by the various 

financial regulators represented on the FSOC. The DoddFrank Act also established an independent Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) within the Federal 

Reserve System; abolished the Office of Thrift Supervision 

(OTS) and transferred its supervisory responsibilities for 

federal and state-chartered thrift institutions and thrift 

holding companies to the Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency (OCC), the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve 

System, respectively; and has given the FDIC significant 

new authorities to help address the risks in systemically 

important financial companies or institutions (SIFIs). 

To carry out its most critical responsibilities under the 

Dodd-Frank Act in an effective and credible manner, 

the FDIC established its Office of Complex Financial 

Institutions (OCFI). This office continues to establish 
app

158

itself and will face challenges during the upcoming year 

as it continues to evolve. New responsibilities for OCFI 

in connection with SIFIs include an Orderly Liquidation 

Authority to resolve bank holding companies and nonbank financial institutions, if necessary, and a requirement 

for resolution plans that will give regulators additional 

tools with which to manage the failure of large, complex 

enterprises. The FDIC’s OCFI has taken steps in three key 

areas over the past year to carry out these responsibilities—

monitoring risk within and across these large, complex 

firms from the standpoint of resolution; conducting 

resolution planning and developing strategies to respond 

to potential crisis situations; and coordinating with 

regulators overseas regarding the significant challenges 

associated with cross-border resolution. 

OCFI has also been developing its own resolution 

plans in order to be ready to resolve a failing systemic 

financial company. These internal FDIC resolution plans—

developed pursuant to the Orderly Liquidation Authority, 

provided under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act—apply 

many of the same powers that the FDIC has long used 

to manage failed-bank receiverships to a failing SIFI. If 

the FDIC is appointed as receiver of such an institution, 

it will be required to carry out an orderly liquidation in a 

manner that maximizes the value of the company’s assets 

and ensures that creditors and shareholders appropriately 

bear any losses. The goal is to close the institution without 

putting the financial system at risk. 

According to the Acting Chairman of the FDIC, this 

internal resolution planning work is the foundation of the 

FDIC’s implementation of its new responsibilities under 

the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, the FDIC has largely 

completed the extensive related rulemaking necessary 

to carry out its responsibilities under Dodd-Frank. 

Notwithstanding such progress, the coming months will 

be challenging for the FDIC and all of the regulatory 

agencies as they work collaboratively to reposition 

themselves to carry out the mandates of the DoddFrank Act, continuing to develop rules to implement key 

sections, and undertaking their new responsibilities as 

members of the FSOC. 

RESOLVING FAILED INSTITU

MANAGING REC

In addition to the future challenges associated with 

exercising this new resolution authority, the Corporation 

is currently dealing with a daunting resolution and 

receivership workload. As of December 31, 2011, 

approximately 415 institutions had failed during the 

crisis, with total assets at inception of $664.3 billion. 

Estimated losses resulting from the failures total 

approximately $86.3 billion. As of year-end 2011, the 

number of institutions on the FDIC’s “Problem List” was 

813, with $319.4 billion in assets, indicating the potential 

of more failures to come and corresponding challenges 

with regard to management and disposition of failed 

bank assets. 

Franchise marketing activities are at the heart of the 

FDIC’s resolution and receivership work, and as failures 

persist, continue to challenge the Corporation. The FDIC 

must determine and pursue the least costly resolution 

to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) for each failing 

institution. Each failing institution is subject to the 

FDIC’s franchise marketing process, which includes 

valuation, marketing, bidding and bid evaluation, and 

sale components. The FDIC is often able to market 

institutions such that all deposits, not just insured 

deposits, are purchased by acquiring institutions, thus 

avoiding losses to uninsured depositors.

Of special note, through purchase and assumption (P&A) 

agreements with acquiring institutions, the Corporation 

has entered into 272 shared-loss agreements (SLA) 

involving about $209.4 billion in initial covered assets. 

Under these agreements, the FDIC agrees to absorb a 

portion of the loss—generally 80-95 percent—which may 

be experienced by the acquiring institution with regard to 

those assets, for a period of up to 10 years. In addition, the 

FDIC has entered into 31 structured asset sales to dispose 

of about $25.4 billion in assets. Under these arrangements, 
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

159

Appe

the FDIC retains a participation interest in future net 

positive cash flows derived from third-party management 

of these assets. 

Other post-closing asset management activities will 

continue to require much FDIC attention. FDIC 

receiverships manage assets from failed institutions, 

mostly those that are not purchased by acquiring 

institutions through P&A agreements or involved in 

structured sales. As of year-end 2011, the FDIC was 

managing 426 receiverships holding about $28.5 billion 

in assets, mostly securities, delinquent commercial realestate and single-family loans, and participation loans. 

Post-closing asset managers are responsible for managing 

many of these assets and rely on receivership assistance 

contractors to perform day-to-day asset management 

functions. Since these loans are often sub-performing 

or nonperforming, workout and asset disposition efforts 

are intensive.

The FDIC increased its permanent resolution and 

receivership staffing and significantly increased its reliance 

on contractor and term employees to fulfill the critical 

resolution and receivership responsibilities associated 

with the ongoing FDIC interest in the assets of failed 

financial institutions. At the end of 2008, on-board 

resolution and receivership staff totaled 491, while onboard staffing as of November 30, 2011 was 1,858. As 

of year-end 2010, the dollar value of contracts awarded 

in the resolution and receivership functions accounted 

for approximately $2.4 billion of the total value of $2.6 

billion. As of December 31, 2011, the dollar value of such 

contracts awarded for 2011 totaled $1.2 billion of a total 

$1.4 billion for all contracts. 

The significant surge in failed-bank assets and associated 

contracting activities will continue to require effective and 

efficient contractor oversight management and technical 

monitoring functions. Bringing on so many contractors 

and new employees in a short period of time can strain 

existing controls and administrative resources in such 

areas as employee background checks, for example, which, 

if not timely and properly executed, can compromise the 

integrity of FDIC programs and operations. 

ENSURING AND MAINTAINING THE V

DEPOSIT INSURANCE

Federal deposit insurance remains at the heart of the 

FDIC’s commitment to maintain stability and public 

confidence in the nation’s financial system. With 

enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 

of 2008, the limit of the basic FDIC deposit insurance 

coverage was raised temporarily from $100,000 to 

$250,000 per depositor, through December 31, 2009. 

Such coverage was subsequently extended through 

December 31, 2013, and the Dodd-Frank Act made 

permanent the increase in the coverage limit to $250,000. 

It also provided deposit insurance coverage on the entire 

balance of non-interest bearing transaction accounts at 

all insured depository institutions until December 31, 

2012. A priority and ongoing challenge for the FDIC is to 

ensure that the DIF remains viable to protect all insured 

depositors. To maintain sufficient DIF balances, the FDIC 

collects risk-based insurance premiums from insured 

institutions and invests deposit insurance funds. 

Since year-end 2007, the failure of FDIC-insured 

institutions has imposed total estimated losses of more 

than $86 billion on the DIF. The sharp increase in bank 

failures over the past several years caused the fund 

balance to become negative. The DIF balance turned 

negative in the third quarter of 2009 and hit a low of 

negative $20.9 billion in the following quarter. As the DIF 

balance declined, the FDIC adopted a statutorily required 

Restoration Plan and increased assessments to handle the 

high volume of failures and begin replenishing the fund. 

The FDIC increased assessment rates at the beginning 

of 2009. In June 2009, the FDIC imposed a special 

assessment that brought in additional funding from the 

banking industry. Further, in December 2009, to increase 

the FDIC’s liquidity, the FDIC required that the industry 

prepay almost $46 billion in assessments, representing 

over 3 years of estimated assessments. 
app

160

Since the FDIC imposed these measures, the DIF balance 

has steadily improved. It increased throughout 2010 

and stood at negative $1.0 billion as of March 31, 2011. 

During the second quarter of 2011, the fund rose to a 

positive $3.9 billion. Under the Restoration Plan for the 

DIF, the FDIC has put in place assessment rates necessary 

to achieve a reserve ratio (the ratio of the fund balance to 

estimated insured deposits) of 1.35 percent by September 

30, 2020, as the Dodd-Frank Act requires. FDIC analysis 

of the past two banking crises has shown that the DIF 

reserve ratio must be 2 percent or higher in advance of a 

banking crisis to avoid high deposit insurance assessment 

rates when banking institutions are strained and least able 

to pay. Consequently, the FDIC established a 2-percent 

reserve ratio target as a critical component of its long-term 

fund management strategy.

The FDIC has also implemented the Dodd-Frank 

Act requirement to redefine the base used for deposit 

insurance assessments as average consolidated total assets 

minus average tangible equity rather than an assessment 

based on domestic deposits. The FDIC does not expect 

this change to materially affect the overall amount of 

assessment revenue that otherwise would have been 

collected. However, as Congress intended, the change in 

the assessment base will generally shift some of the overall 

assessment burden from community banks to the largest 

institutions, which rely less on domestic deposits for their 

funding than do smaller institutions. The result will be 

a sharing of the assessment burden that better reflects 

each group’s share of industry assets. The FDIC estimates 

that aggregate premiums paid by institutions with less 

than $10 billion in assets will decline by approximately 30 

percent, primarily due to the assessment base change. 

The FDIC, in cooperation with the other primary federal 

regulators, proactively identifies and evaluates the risk and 

financial condition of every insured depository institution. 

The FDIC also identifies broader economic and financial 

risk factors that affect all insured institutions. The FDIC 

is committed to providing accurate and timely bank data 

related to the financial condition of the banking industry. 

Industry-wide trends and risks are communicated to 

the financial industry, its supervisors, and policymakers 

through a variety of regularly produced publications 

and ad hoc reports. Risk-management activities include 

approving the entry of new institutions into the deposit 

insurance system, off-site risk analysis, assessment of riskbased premiums, and special insurance examinations and 

enforcement actions. In light of increasing globalization 

and the interdependence of financial and economic 

systems, the FDIC also supports the development and 

maintenance of effective deposit insurance and banking 

systems world-wide. 

Primary responsibility for identifying and managing risks 

to the DIF lies with the FDIC’s Division of Insurance and 

Research (DIR), Division of Risk Management Supervision 

(RMS), Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, and 

now OCFI. The FDIC’s new Chief Risk Officer will also 

play a key role in identifying risks, and his office will have a 

greater role to play in the months ahead. To help integrate 

the risk management process, the Board authorized the 

creation of an Enterprise Risk Committee, as a crossdivisional body to coordinate risk assessment and response 

across the Corporation. Also, a Risk Analysis Center 

monitors emerging risks and recommends responses to 

the National Risk Committee. In addition, a Financial 

Risk Committee focuses on how risks impact the DIF and 

financial reporting. Challenges going forward will include 

efficiently and effectively leveraging the risk insights of all 

involved in corporate risk management activities.

Over recent years, the consolidation of the banking 

industry resulted in fewer and fewer financial institutions 

controlling an ever-expanding percentage of the nation’s 

financial assets. The FDIC has taken a number of 

measures to strengthen its oversight of the risks to the 

insurance fund posed by the largest institutions, and 

its key programs have included the Large Insured 

Depository Institution Program, Dedicated Examiner 

Program, Shared National Credit Program, and off-site 

monitoring systems.
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

161

Appe

Importantly, with respect to the largest institutions, and 

their risk to the DIF, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act will 

help address the notion of “Too Big to Fail.” The largest 

institutions will be subjected to the same type of market 

discipline facing smaller institutions. Title II provides the 

FDIC authority to wind down systemically important 

bank holding companies and non-bank financial 

companies as a companion to the FDIC’s authority 

to resolve insured depository institutions. As noted 

earlier, the FDIC’s new OCFI is now playing a key role in 

overseeing these activities. 

ENSURING INSTITUTION SAFETY 

THROUGH AN EFFECTIVE EXAMIN

SUPERVISION P

The Corporation’s supervision program promotes 

the safety and soundness of FDIC-supervised insured 

depository institutions. As of year-end 2011, the FDIC 

was the primary federal regulator for approximately 4,625 

FDIC-insured, state-chartered institutions that are not 

members of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB)—generally 

referred to as “state non-member” institutions. As such, 

the FDIC is the lead federal regulator for the majority 

of community banks. The Acting Chairman has made it 

clear that one of the FDIC’s most important priorities is 

the future of community banks and the critical role they 

play in the financial system and the U.S. economy as a 

whole. The Corporation plans a number of upcoming 

initiatives to further its understanding of the challenges 

and opportunities facing community banks, including 

a conference, a study by DIR, and an assessment of both 

risk-management and compliance supervision practices to 

see if there are ways to make processes more efficient.

Historically, the Department of the Treasury (the OCC 

and the OTS) and the FRB have supervised other banks 

and thrifts, depending on the institution’s charter. The 

recent winding down of the OTS under the Dodd-Frank 

Act resulted in the transfer of supervisory responsibility 

for about 60 state-chartered savings associations to the 

FDIC, all of which are considered small and that will be 

absorbed into the FDIC’s existing supervisory program. 

About 670 federally chartered savings associations were 

transferred to the OCC. As insurer, the Corporation also 

has back-up examination authority to protect the interests 

of the DIF for about 2,800 national banks, state-chartered 

banks that are members of the FRB, and those savings 

associations now regulated by the OCC.

The examination of the institutions that it regulates is a 

critical FDIC function. Through this process, the FDIC 

assesses the adequacy of management and internal control 

systems to identify, measure, monitor, and control risks; 

and bank examiners judge the safety and soundness 

of a bank’s operations. The examination program 

employs risk-focused supervision for banks. According 

to examination policy, the objective of a risk-focused 

examination is to effectively evaluate the safety and 

soundness of the bank, including the assessment of 

risk management systems, financial condition, and 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations, while 

focusing resources on the bank’s highest risks. Part of the 

FDIC’s overall responsibility and authority to examine 

banks for safety and soundness relates to compliance 

with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which requires financial 

institutions to develop and implement a BSA compliance 

program to monitor for suspicious activity and mitigate 

associated money laundering risks within the financial 

institution. This includes keeping records and filing 

reports on certain financial transactions. An institution’s 

level of risk for potential terrorist financing and money 

laundering determines the necessary scope of a Bank 

Secrecy Act examination. 

As noted earlier, the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act 

brought about significant organizational changes to 

the FDIC’s supervision program in the FDIC’s former 

Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection 

(DSC). That is, the FDIC Board of Directors approved 

the establishment of OCFI and a Division of Depositor 

and Consumer Protection. In that connection, DSC was 

renamed RMS. OCFI began its operations and is focusing 

on overseeing bank holding companies with more than 

$100 billion in assets and their corresponding insured 
app

162

depository institutions. OCFI is also responsible for 

non-bank financial companies designated as systemically 

important by FSOC. OCFI and RMS will coordinate 

closely on all supervisory activities for insured state nonmember institutions that exceed $100 billion in assets, 

and RMS is responsible for the overall Large Insured 

Depository Institution program. 

As noted earlier, with the number of institutions on 

the FDIC’s “Problem List” as of December 31, 2011 at 

813, there is a potential of more failures to come and an 

additional asset disposition workload. The FDIC is the 

primary federal regulator for 533 of the 813 problem 

institutions, with total assets of $175.4 billion and $319.4 

billion, respectively. Importantly, however, during the 

second quarter of 2011, the number of institutions on the 

Problem List fell for the first time in 19 quarters—from 

888 to 865—and total assets of problem institutions 

declined during the second quarter from $397 billion to 

$372 billion. Maintaining vigilant supervisory activities 

of all institutions, including problem institutions, and 

applying lessons learned in light of the recent crisis will be 

critical to ensuring stability and continued confidence in 

the financial system going forward.

PROTECTING AND EDUCATING CONS

ENSURING AN EFFECTIVE COMPL

The FDIC serves a number of key roles in the financial 

system and among the most important is its work 

in ensuring that banks serve their communities and 

treat consumers fairly. The FDIC carries out its role 

by providing consumers 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. As a means of remaining 

responsive to consumers, the FDIC’s Consumer Response 

Center investigates consumer complaints about FDICsupervised institutions and responds to consumer 

inquiries about consumer laws and regulations and 

banking practices. 

Currently and going forward, the FDIC will be 

experiencing and implementing changes related to the 

Dodd-Frank Act that have direct bearing on consumer 

protections. As noted earlier, the Dodd-Frank Act 

established the new Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau within the FRB and transferred to this bureau 

the FDIC’s examination and enforcement responsibilities 

over most federal consumer financial laws for insured 

depository institutions with over $10 billion in assets and 

their insured depository institution affiliates. Also during 

early 2011, the FDIC established its new Division of 

Depositor and Consumer Protection, responsible for the 

Corporation’s compliance examination and enforcement 

program as well as the depositor protection and consumer 

and community affairs activities supporting that 

program. These entities will face mutual challenges, and 

coordination will be critical. 

Historically, turmoil in the credit and mortgage markets 

has presented regulators, policymakers, and the financial 

services industry with serious challenges. Many of these 

challenges persist, even as the economy shows signs of 

improvement. The FDIC has been committed to working 

with the Congress and others to ensure that the banking 

system remains sound and that the broader financial 

system is positioned to meet the credit needs of the 

economy, especially the needs of creditworthy households 

that may experience distress. Another important focus 

is financial literacy. The FDIC has promoted expanded 

opportunities for the underserved banking population 

in the United States to enter and better understand the 

financial mainstream. Economic inclusion continues 

to be a priority for the FDIC. A challenge articulated 

by the Acting Chairman as he looks to the future is to 

increase access to financial services for the unbanked and 

underbanked in the United States. 

Consumers today are also concerned about data security 

and financial privacy. Banks are increasingly using third-
2011

A N N U A L R E P O R T

163

Appe

party servicers to provide support for core information 

and transaction processing functions. The FDIC must 

continue to ensure that financial institutions protect 

the privacy and security of information about customers 

under applicable U.S. laws and regulations. 

EFFECTIVELY MANAGING THE FD

OTHER CORPORATE RESO

The FDIC must effectively and economically manage 

and utilize a number of critical strategic resources 

and implement effective controls in order to carry 

out its mission successfully, particularly with respect 

to its human, financial, information technology (IT), 

and physical resources. These resources have been 

stretched during the past years of the recent crisis, and 

the Corporation will continue to face challenges as it 

seeks to return to a steadier state of operations. New 

responsibilities, reorganizations, and changes in senior 

leadership and in the makeup of the FDIC Board will 

continue to impact the FDIC workforce in the months 

ahead. Promoting sound governance and effective 

stewardship of its core business processes and human and 

physical resources will be key to the Corporation’s success. 

Of particular note, in response to the crisis, FDIC staffing 

levels increased dramatically. The Board approved an 

authorized 2011 staffing level of 9,252 employees, up 

about 2.5 percent from the 2010 authorization of 9,029. 

On a net basis, all of the new positions were temporary, 

as were 39 percent of the total 9,252 authorized positions 

for 2011. Temporary employees were hired by the FDIC 

to assist with bank closings, management and sale of 

failed bank assets, and other activities that were expected 

to diminish substantially as the industry returns to more 

stable conditions. To that end, the FDIC opened three 

temporary satellite offices (East Coast, West Coast, and 

Midwest) for resolving failed financial institutions and 

managing the resulting receiverships. The FDIC closed the 

West Coast Office in January 2012 and plans to close the 

Midwest Office in September 2012.

The Corporation’s contracting level has also grown 

significantly, especially with respect to resolution and 

receivership work. Contract awards in DRR totaled $2.4 

billion during 2010 and as of December 2011 totaled 

$1.2 billion. To support the increases in FDIC staff and 

contractor resources, the Board of Directors approved a 

$4.0 billion Corporate Operating Budget for 2011, down 

slightly from the 2010 budget the Board approved in 

December 2009. For 2012, the approved corporate budget 

was further reduced to $3.28 billion to support 8,704 

staff. The FDIC’s operating expenses are paid from the 

DIF, and consistent with sound corporate governance 

principles, the Corporation’s financial management 

efforts must continuously seek to be efficient and costconscious, particularly in a government-wide environment 

that is facing severe budgetary constraints. 

Opening new offices, rapidly hiring and training many 

new employees, expanding contracting activity, and 

training those with contract oversight responsibilities 

placed heavy demands on the Corporation’s personnel 

and administrative staff and operations. Now, as 

conditions seem a bit improved throughout the industry 

and the economy, a number of employees will be 

released—as is the case in the two temporary satellite 

offices referenced earlier─ and staffing levels will move 

closer to a pre-crisis level, which may cause additional 

disruption to ongoing operations and introduce new risks 

to current workplaces and working environments. Among 

other challenges, pre- and post-employment checks for 

employees and contractors will need to ensure the highest 

standards of ethical conduct, and for all employees, 

in light of a transitioning workplace, the Corporation 

will seek to sustain its emphasis on fostering employee 

engagement and morale. 

From an IT perspective, amidst the heightened activity 

in the industry and economy, the FDIC is engaging in 

massive amounts of information sharing, both internally 

and with external partners. This is also true with respect 

to sharing of highly sensitive information with other 

members of the newly formed FSOC and with the Council 
app

164

itself. FDIC systems contain voluminous amounts 

of critical data. The Corporation needs to ensure the 

integrity, availability, and appropriate confidentiality 

of bank data, personally identifiable information (PII), 

and other sensitive information in an environment of 

increasingly sophisticated security threats and global 

connectivity. Continued attention to ensuring the physical 

security of all FDIC resources is also a priority. The FDIC 

needs to 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. 

The FDIC is led by a five-member Board of Directors, all of 

whom are to be appointed by the President and confirmed 

by the Senate, with no more than three being from the 

same political party. For much of the past year, the FDIC 

had in place three internal directors—the Chairman, Vice 

Chairman, and one independent Director—and two ex 

officio directors, the Comptroller of the Currency and the 

Director of OTS. With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

the OTS no longer exists, and the Director of OTS has 

been replaced on the FDIC Board by the Director of the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray. 

Former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair left the Corporation 

when her term expired—in early July 2011. Vice Chairman 

Martin Gruenberg was serving as Acting Chairman as of 

the end of 2011, and had been nominated by the President 

to serve as Chairman. In March 2012, the Senate extended 

the Board term for Acting Chairman Gruenberg but did 

not vote on his nomination to be Chairman. The internal 

Director, Thomas Curry, nominated by the President to 

serve as Comptroller of the Currency, was confirmed as 

Comptroller in late March 2012 and currently occupies 

that position. Thomas Hoenig, nominated by the 

President to serve as Vice Chairman of the FDIC, was 

confirmed as a Board member in March 2012 and was 

sworn in, though not as Vice Chairman, in April 2012. 

Finally, Jeremiah Norton was confirmed by the Senate in 

March 2012 and sworn in as Board Member in April 2012. 

The Board is now at its full five-member capacity for the 

first time since July 2011. Given the relatively frequent 

turnover on the Board and the new configuration of the 

current Board, it is essential that strong and sustainable 

governance and communication processes be in place 

throughout the FDIC. Board members, in particular, need 

to possess and share the information needed at all times 

to understand existing and emerging risks and to make 

sound policy and management decisions. 

Beyond the Board level, enterprise risk management is a 

key component of governance at the FDIC. The FDIC’s 

numerous enterprise risk management activities need to 

consistently identify, analyze, and mitigate operational 

risks on an integrated, corporate-wide basis. Additionally, 

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. In that context, the new 

Office of Corporate Risk Management led by the FDIC’s 

first Chief Risk Officer will assess external and internal 

risks faced by the FDIC and will report to the FDIC 

Chairman and periodically report back to the FDIC Board 

an important organizational change that should serve the 

best interests of the Corporation.