VII. APPENDICES

135

VII.

Appendices
APPENDICES 137

A. KEY STATISTICS

FDIC ACTIONS ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS APPLICATIONS 

2013–2015

2015 2014 2013

Deposit Insurance 5 2 10

Approved1 5 2 10

Denied 0 0 0

New Branches 548 520 499

Approved 548 520 499

Denied 0 0 0

Mergers 270 251 256

Approved 270 251 256

Denied 0 0 0

Requests for Consent to Serve2 240 327 474

Approved 239 327 474

Section 19 7 7 4

Section 32 232 320 470

Denied 1 0 0

Section 19 0 0 0

Section 32 1 0 0

Notices of Change in Control 20 15 22

Letters of Intent Not to Disapprove 20 15 22

Disapproved 0 0 0

Brokered Deposit Waivers 20 46 81

Approved 20 46 81

Denied 0 0 0

Savings Association Activities 1 4 8

Approved 1 4 8

Denied 0 0 0

State Bank Activities/Investments3 10 14 10

Approved 10 14 10

Denied 0 0 0

Conversion of Mutual Institutions 4 4 7

Non-Objection 4 4 7

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 Section 24 of the FDI Act, in general, prohibits 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.
138 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

COMBINED RISK AND CONSUMER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 

2013–2015

2015 2014 2013

Total Number of Actions Initiated by the FDIC 268 320 414

Termination of Insurance 11 3 11

Involuntary Termination 0 0 0

Sec. 8a For Violations, Unsafe/Unsound Practices 

or Conditions

0 0 0

Voluntary Termination 11 3 11

Sec. 8a By Order Upon Request 0 0 0

Sec. 8p No Deposits 6 3 7

Sec. 8q Deposits Assumed 5 0 4

Sec. 8b Cease-and-Desist Actions 48 57 83

Notices of Charges Issued 3 1 2

Orders to Pay Restitution 9 7 11

Consent Orders 36 48 70

Personal Cease and Desist Orders 0 1 0

Sec. 8e Removal/Prohibition of Director or Officer 88 101 113

Notices of Intention to Remove/Prohibit 4 4 14

Consent Orders 84 97 99

Sec. 8g Suspension/Removal When Charged With Crime 0 2 0

Civil Money Penalties Issued 45 66 94

Sec. 7a Call Report Penalties 0 0 0

Sec. 8i Civil Money Penalties 36 62 81

Sec. 8i Civil Money Penalty Notices of Assessment 9 4 13

Sec. 10c Orders of Investigation 19 16 16

Sec. 19 Waiver Orders 51 69 88

Approved Section 19 Waiver Orders 51 68 86

Denied Section 19 Waiver Orders 0 1 2

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

Truth-in-Lending Act Reimbursement Actions 64 69 98

Denials of Requests for Relief 0 0 0

Grants of Relief 0 0 0

Banks Making Reimbursement* 64 69 98

Suspicious Activity Reports (Open and closed institutions)* 189,505 164,777 123,134

Other Actions Not Listed 6 6 9

* These actions do not constitute the initiation of a formal enforcement action and, therefore, are not included in the total number of actions initiated.
APPENDICES 139

ESTIMATED INSURED DEPOSITS AND 

THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, 

DECEMBER 31, 1934, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 20151

Dollars in Millions (except Insurance Coverage)

Deposits in Insured 

Institutions2

Insurance Fund as 

a Percentage of

Year

Insurance 

Coverage2

Total 

Domestic 

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

Percentage 

of Domestic 

Deposits

Deposit 

Insurance

Fund

Total 

Domestic 

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

2015 $250,000 $10,695,512 $6,420,010 60.0 $70,115.2 0.66 1.09 

2014 250,000 10,408,065 6,211,168 59.7 62,780.2 0.60 1.01 

2013 250,000 9,825,399 6,010,853 61.2 47,190.8 0.48 0.79 

2012 250,000 9,474,585 7,405,043 78.2 32,957.8 0.35 0.45 

2011 250,000 8,782,134 6,973,468 79.4 11,826.5 0.13 0.17 

2010 250,000 7,887,733 6,301,528 79.9 (7,352.2) (0.09) (0.12)

2009 250,000 7,705,353 5,407,773 70.2 (20,861.8) (0.27) (0.39)

2008 100,000 7,505,408 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 
140 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

ESTIMATED INSURED DEPOSITS AND 

THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, 

DECEMBER 31, 1934, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 20151 (continued)

Dollars in Millions (except Insurance Coverage) 

Deposits in Insured 

Institutions2

Insurance Fund as 

a Percentage of

Year

Insurance 

Coverage2

Total Domestic 

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

Percentage of 

Insured Deposits

Deposit 

Insurance

Fund

Total

Domestic 

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1954 10,000 203,195 110,973 54.6 1,542.7 0.76 1.39 
APPENDICES 141

ESTIMATED INSURED DEPOSITS AND 

THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, 

DECEMBER 31, 1934, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 20151 (continued)

Dollars in Millions (except Insurance Coverage) 

Deposits in Insured 

Institutions2

Insurance Fund as 

a Percentage of

Year

Insurance 

Coverage2

Total Domestic 

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

Percentage of 

Insured Deposits

Deposit 

Insurance

Fund

Total

Domestic 

Deposits

Est. Insured

Deposits

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

 For 2015, figures are as of September 30; all other prior years are as of December 31. 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 the sum of the BIF and Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) 

amounts; for 2006 to 2015, figures are for DIF. Amounts for 1989-2015 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.

2

 The year-end 2008 coverage limit and estimated insured deposits do not reflect the temporary increase to $250,000 then in effect under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) Act made this coverage 

limit permanent. The year-end 2009 coverage limit and estimated insured deposits reflect the $250,000 coverage limit. The Dodd-Frank Act also 

temporarily provided unlimited coverage for non-interest bearing transaction accounts for two years beginning December 31, 2010. Coverage for 

certain retirement accounts increased to $250,000 in 2006. Initial coverage limit was $2,500 from January 1 to June 30, 1934.
142 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

INCOME AND EXPENSES, DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, 

FROM BEGINNING OF OPERATIONS, SEPTEMBER 11, 1933, 

THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2015 

Dollars in Millions

Income Expenses and Losses

Year Total

Assessment 

Income

Assessment 

Credits

Investment 

and Other

Effective

Assessment 

Rate1 Total

Provision 

for 

Ins. Losses

Admin.

and 

Operating 

Expenses2

Interest

& Other 

Ins. 

Expenses

Funding 

Transfer

from the 

FSLIC 

Resolution 

Fund

Net 

Income/

(Loss)

Total $219,955.3 $155,013.6 $11,392.9 $76,334.6 $147,597.3 $110,042.2 $28,094.6 $9,460.5 $139.5 $72,497.5 

2015 9,303.5 8,846.8 0.0 456.7 0.0656% (553.2) (2,251.3) 1,687.2 10.9 0 9,856.7 

2014 8,965.1 8,656.1 0.0 309.0 0.0664 (6,634.7) (8,305.5) 1,664.3 6.5 0 15,599.8 

2013 10,458.9 9,734.2 0.0 724.7 0.0776 (4,045.9) (5,659.4) 1,608.7 4.8 0 14,504.8 

2012 18,522.3 12,397.2 0.2 6,125.3 0.1012 (2,599.0) (4,222.6) 1,777.5 (153.9) 0 21,121.3 

2011 16,342.0 13,499.5 0.9 2,843.4 0.1115 (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 2,384.7 107.8 0.0 2,276.9 0.0023 719.6 (243.0) 945.1 17.5 0 1,665.1 

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)

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 
APPENDICES 143

INCOME AND EXPENSES, DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, 

FROM BEGINNING OF OPERATIONS, SEPTEMBER 11, 1933, 

THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2015 (continued)

Dollars in Millions

Income Expenses and Losses

Year Total

Assessment 

Income

Assessment 

Credits

Investment 

and Other

Effective

Assessment 

Rate1 Total

Provision 

for 

Ins. Losses

Admin.

and 

Operating 

Expenses2

Interest

& Other 

Ins. 

Expenses

Funding 

Transfer

from the 

FSLIC 

Resolution 

Fund

Net 

Income/

(Loss)

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 

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 
144 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

1

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

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

rate is calculated from annual assessment income (net of assessment credits), excluding transfers to the Financing Corporation (FICO), Resolution 

Funding Corporation (REFCORP) and 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. For the first quarter of 2009, assessment rates were increased to a range of 0.12 to 0.50 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 assessment capped at 10 basis points of their second quarter assessment base. From the second 

quarter of 2009 through the first quarter of 2011, initial assessment rates ranged between 0.12 and 0.45 percent of assessable deposits. Initial rates are 

subject to further adjustments. Beginning in the second quarter of 2011, the assessment base changed to average total consolidated assets less average 

tangible equity (with certain adjustments for banker’s banks and custodial banks), as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The FDIC implemented a new 

assessment rate schedule at the same time to conform to the larger assessment base. Initial assessment rates were lowered to a range of 0.05 to 0.35 

percent of the new base. The annualized assessment rates averaged approximately 17.6 cents per $100 of assessable deposits for the first quarter of 

2011 and 11.1 cents per $100 of the new base for the last three quarters of 2011 (which is the figure shown in the table). The effective assessment rate 

for 2015 is based on year-to-date assessment income through September 30, 2015, divided by a three quarter average of the quarterly assessment base; 

the quotient is annualized.

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 on page 85 of this report shows 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 (1992).

4

 Includes a $106 million net loss on government securities (1976).

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.

INCOME AND EXPENSES, DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND, 

FROM BEGINNING OF OPERATIONS, SEPTEMBER 11, 1933, 

THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2015 (continued)

Dollars in Millions

Income Expenses and Losses

Year Total

Assessment 

Income

Assessment 

Credits

Investment 

and Other

Effective

Assessment 

Rate1 Total

Provision 

for 

Ins. Losses

Admin.

and 

Operating 

Expenses2

Interest

& Other 

Ins. 

Expenses

Funding 

Transfer

from the 

FSLIC 

Resolution 

Fund

Net 

Income/

(Loss)

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

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

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

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

1933-34 7.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 N/A 10.0 0.2 9.8 0.0 0 (3.0)
APPENDICES 145

FDIC INSURED INSTITUTIONS CLOSED DURING 2015

Dollars in Thousands

Codes for Bank Class:

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 Location

Bank 

Class

Number

of 

Deposit 

Accounts

Total 

Assets1

Total 

Deposits1

Insured 

Deposit Funding 

and Other 

Disbursements

Estimated 

Loss to 

the DIF2

Date of 

Closing 

or 

Acquisition

Receiver/Assuming 

Bank and Location

Purchase and Assumption - All Deposits

First National Bank 

of Crestview

Crestview, FL

N 4,701 $73,804 $73,199 $73,338 $5,971 01/16/15 First NBC Bank

New Orleans, LA

Highland 

Community Bank

Chicago, IL

NM 2,807 $54,727 $53,453 $49,333 $5,573 01/23/15 United Fidelity Bank, 

FSB

Evansville, IN

Capitol City Bank 

and Trust Company

Atlanta, GA

NM 14,296 $272,311 $262,652 $269,980 $101,770 02/13/15 First-Citizens Bank 

and Trust Company

Raleigh, NC

Doral Bank

San Juan, PR

NM 207,722 $5,898,515 $4,097,734 $3,776,774 $669,343 02/27/15 Banco Popular de 

Puerto Rico

Hato Rey, PR

Edgebrook Bank

Chicago, IL

NM 1,614 $90,034 $90,007 $90,434 $16,782 05/08/15 Republic Bank of 

Chicago

Oak Brook, IL

Premier Bank

Denver, CO

SM 1,215 $26,760 $25,480 $25,665 $4,394 07/10/15 United Fidelity Bank, 

FSB

Evansville, IN

The Bank of Georgia

Peachtree City, GA

NM 13,204 $286,102 $264,234 $266,869 $23,155 10/02/15 Fidelity Bank

Atlanta, GA

Hometown 

National Bank

Longview, WA

N 297 $3,785 $3,705 $3,910 $1,614 10/02/15 Twin City Bank

Longview, WA

1

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

2

 Estimated losses are as of December 31, 2015. 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.
146 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

RECOVERIES AND LOSSES BY THE 

DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND ON DISBURSEMENTS 

FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS, 1934 - 2015

Dollars in Thousands

Bank and Thrift Failures1

Year2

Number 

of Banks/

Thrifts

Total 

Assets3

Total 

Deposits3 Funding4 Recoveries5

Estimated 

Additional 

Recoveries

Final and 

Estimated 

Losses6

Total 2,610 $941,284,493 $708,282,924 $574,389,053 $408,846,768 $56,802,281 $108,740,004 

2015 8 6,706,038 4,870,464 4,556,304 560,000 3,167,702 828,602 

2014 18 2,913,503 2,691,485 2,677,550 320,142 1,949,750 407,658 

2013 24 6,044,051 5,132,246 4,812,554 168,935 3,328,535 1,315,084 

2012 51 11,617,348 11,009,630 10,141,109 1,633,237 5,926,222 2,581,650 

2011 92 34,922,997 31,071,862 29,829,649 2,782,790 20,169,924 6,764,024 

20107 157 92,084,988 78,290,185 80,238,225 54,190,861 9,317,868 16,729,496 

20097 140 169,709,160 137,835,121 133,847,404 92,526,431 12,777,858 28,543,115 

20087 25 371,945,480 234,321,715 205,453,181 184,246,546 2,781,758 18,424,877 

2007 3 2,614,928 2,424,187 1,920,444 1,451,701 302,160 166,583 

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2004 4 170,099 156,733 139,121 134,978 226 3,917 

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

2002 11 2,872,720 2,512,834 520,543 1,711,173 (1,540,947) 350,317 

2001 4 1,821,760 1,661,214 21,131 1,138,677 (1,410,011) 292,465 

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

1999 8 1,592,189 1,320,573 1,307,876 711,758 5,801 590,317 

1998 3 290,238 260,675 292,839 58,248 11,541 223,050 

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 14,541,477 10,866,760 704 3,674,013 

1991 124 64,556,512 52,972,034 21,500,010 15,496,730 4,998 5,998,282 

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 

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 
APPENDICES 147

RECOVERIES AND LOSSES BY THE 

DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND ON DISBURSEMENTS 

FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS, 1934 - 2015

Dollars in Thousands

Assistance Transactions1

Year2

Number 

of Banks/

Thrifts

Total 

Assets3

Total 

Deposits3 Funding4 Recoveries5

Estimated 

Additional 

Recoveries

Final and 

Estimated 

Losses6

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

2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20098 8 1,917,482,183 1,090,318,282 0 0 0 0 

20088 5 1,306,041,994 280,806,966 0 0 0 0 

2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1984 2 40,470,332 29,088,247 5,531,179 4,414,904 0 1,116,275 
148 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

RECOVERIES AND LOSSES BY THE 

DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND ON DISBURSEMENTS 

FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS, 1934 - 2015 (continued)

Dollars in Thousands

Assistance Transactions1

Year2

Number 

of Banks/

Thrifts

Total 

Assets3

Total 

Deposits3 Funding4 Recoveries5

Estimated 

Additional 

Recoveries

Final and 

Estimated 

Losses6

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 for which the FDIC is appointed receiver, 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 to 1990, 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 2015, figures 

are for the DIF.

3

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

4

 Funding represents the amounts provided by the DIF to receiverships for subrogated claims, advances for working capital, and administrative 

expenses paid on their behalf. Beginning in 2008, the DIF resolves failures using whole-bank purchase and assumption transactions, most with an 

accompanying shared-loss agreement (SLA). The DIF satifies any resulting liabilities by offsetting receivables from resolutions when receiverships 

declare a dividend and/or sending cash directly to receiverships to fund an SLA and other expenses.

5

 Recoveries represent cash received and dividends (cash and non-cash) declared by receiverships.

6

 Final losses represent actual losses for unreimbursed subrogated claims of inactivated receiverships. Estimated losses represent the difference 

between the amount paid by the DIF to cover obligations to insured depositors and the estimated recoveries from the liquidation of receivership 

assets. 

7

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

December 31, 2015, for TAG accounts in 2010, 2009, and 2008 are $388 million, $1.186 million, and $13 million, respectively.

8

 Includes institutions where assistance was provided under a systemic risk determination.
APPENDICES 149

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

OF INSURED THRIFTS TAKEN OVER OR CLOSED BECAUSE OF 

FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, 1989 THROUGH 19951

Dollars in Thousands

Year Total Assets Deposits

Estimated 

Receivership 

Loss2

Loss to 

Fund3

Total 748 $393,986,574 $318,328,770 $75,977,846 $81,581,460 

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 5,708,253 267,595 65,212 

1992 59 44,196,946 34,773,224 3,286,908 3,832,145 

1991 144 78,898,904 65,173,122 9,235,967 9,734,263 

1990 213 129,662,498 98,963,962 16,062,685 19,257,578 

19894 318 134,519,630 113,168,009 47,085,027 48,649,913 

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 the FRF’s books. Year is the year of failure, not the year of resolution.

2 The Estimated Receivership Loss represents 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 Fund represents the total resolution cost of the failed thrifts in the FRF-RTC fund. In addition to the estimated losses for 

receiverships, the loss 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.

4

 Total for 1989 excludes nine failures of the former FSLIC.
150 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

B. MORE ABOUT THE FDIC

FDIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Seated (left to right): Thomas M. Hoenig and Martin J. Gruenberg.

Standing (left to right): Thomas J. Curry and Richard Cordray.

Martin J. Gruenberg 

Martin J. Gruenberg is the 20th Chairman of the 

FDIC, receiving Senate confirmation on November 

15, 2012, for a five-year term. Mr. Gruenberg 

served as Vice Chairman and Member of the FDIC 

Board of Directors from August 22, 2005, until his 

confirmation as Chairman. He served as Acting 

Chairman from July 9, 2011, to November 15, 2012, 

and also from November 16, 2005, to June 26, 2006.

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 
APPENDICES 151

1991 (FDICIA); the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; and 

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Mr. Gruenberg served as Chairman of the Executive 

Council and President of the International Association 

of Deposit Insurers (IADI) from November 2007 to 

November 2012.

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 M. Hoenig

Thomas M. Hoenig was confirmed by the Senate as 

Vice Chairman of the FDIC on November 15, 2012. 

He joined the FDIC on April 16, 2012, as a member 

of the Board of Directors of the FDIC for a six-year 

term. He is also a member of the Executive Board of 

the International Association of Deposit Insurers.

Prior to serving on the FDIC Board, Mr. Hoenig was 

the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas 

City and a member of the Federal Reserve System’s 

Federal Open Market Committee from 1991 to 2011.

Mr. Hoenig was with the Federal Reserve for 38 

years, beginning as an economist, and then as a 

senior officer in banking supervision during the U.S. 

banking crisis of the 1980s. In 1986, he led the 

Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank’s Division of Bank 

Supervision and Structure, directing the oversight of 

more than 1,000 banks and bank holding companies 

with assets ranging from less than $100 million to 

$20 billion. He became President of the Kansas City 

Federal Reserve Bank on October 1, 1991.

Mr. Hoenig is a native of Fort Madison, Iowa, and 

received a doctorate in economics from Iowa State 

University.

Thomas J. Curry

Thomas J. Curry was sworn in as the 30th 

Comptroller of the Currency on April 9, 2012. The 

Comptroller of the Currency is the administrator 

of national banks and federal savings associations, 

and chief officer of the Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency (OCC). The OCC supervises 

approximately 1,700 national banks and federal 

savings associations and about 50 federal branches and 

agencies of foreign banks in the United States. These 

institutions comprise nearly two-thirds of the assets 

of the commercial banking system. The Comptroller 

is a Director of NeighborWorks® America and also 

a member of the Federal Financial Institutions 

Examination Council (FFIEC) where he served as 

Chairman for a two-year term from April 2013 until 

April 2015. 

Prior to becoming Comptroller of the Currency, 

Mr. Curry served as a Director of the FDIC Board 

since January 2004, and as the Chairman of the 

NeighborWorks® America Board of Directors. 

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.

Mr. Curry served as the Chairman of the Conference 

of State Bank Supervisors from 2000 to 2001, and 

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. 

Richard Cordray 

Richard Cordray serves as the first Director of 

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He 

previously led the Bureau’s Enforcement Division.

Prior to joining the Bureau, Mr. Cordray served 

on the front lines of consumer protection as Ohio’s 
152 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Attorney General. Mr. Cordray recovered more than 

$2 billion for Ohio’s retirees, investors, and business 

owners, and took major steps to help protect its 

consumers from fraudulent foreclosures and financial 

predators. In 2010, his office responded to a record 

number of consumer complaints, but Mr. Cordray 

went further and opened that process for the first 

time to small businesses and nonprofit organizations 

to ensure protections for even more Ohioans. To 

recognize his work on behalf of consumers as Attorney 

General, the Better Business Bureau presented Mr. 

Cordray with an award for promoting an ethical 

marketplace.

Mr. Cordray also served as Ohio Treasurer and 

Franklin County Treasurer, two elected positions in 

which he led state and county banking, investment, 

debt, and financing activities. As Ohio Treasurer, he 

resurrected a defunct economic development program 

that provides low-interest loan assistance to small 

businesses to create jobs, re-launched the original 

concept as GrowNOW, and pumped hundreds of 

millions of dollars into access for credit to small 

businesses. Mr. Cordray simultaneously created a 

Bankers Advisory Council to share ideas about the 

program with community bankers across Ohio.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Cordray was an adjunct 

professor at the Ohio State University College of 

Law, served as a State Representative for the 33rd 

Ohio House District, was the first Solicitor General 

in Ohio’s history, and was a sole practitioner and 

Counsel to Kirkland & Ellis. Mr. Cordray has 

argued seven cases before the United States Supreme 

Court, by special appointment of both the Clinton 

and Bush Justice Departments. He is a graduate of 

Michigan State University, Oxford University, and 

the University of Chicago Law School. Mr. Cordray 

was Editor-in-Chief of the University of Chicago Law 

Review and later clerked for U.S. Supreme Court 

Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.

Mr. Cordray lives in Grove City, Ohio, with his wife 

Peggy—a Professor at Capital University Law School 

in Columbus—and twin children Danny and Holly.

Jeremiah O. Norton

Jeremiah O. Norton resigned from the FDIC Board 

of Directors as of June 5, 2015. Mr. Norton had been 

a Board member since April 16, 2012.
APPENDICES 153

FDIC ORGANIZATION CHART/OFFICIALS

DEPUTY TO THE CHAIRMAN 

AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,

CHIEF OF STAFF

DIVISION OF INFORMATION 

TECHOLOGY

Russell G. Pittman

Director

INFORMATION SECURITY

AND PRIVACY STAFF

Christopher J. Farrow

Chief Information 

Security Officer

Barbara A. Ryan

CHIEF RISK OFFICER

Stephen A. Quick

SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR

SUPERVISORY MATTERS

Jason C. Cave

DEPUTY TO THE CHAIRMAN

Kymberly K. Copa

CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 

AND PRIVACY OFFICER

Lawrence Gross

DEPUTY TO THE CHAIRMAN 

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Steven O. App

SENIOR ADVISOR

INTERNATIONAL 

RESOLUTION POLICY

David S. Hoelscher

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fred W. Gibson

Acting Inspector General

DEPUTY TO THE CHAIRMAN

FOR COMMUNICATIONS

Barbara Hagenbaugh

INTERNAL OMBUDSMAN

Robert D. Harris

WRITER-EDITOR

Michele A. Heller

OFFICE OF 

COMMUNICATIONS

DIVISION OF RESOLUTION 

AND RECEIVERSHIPS

Bret D. Edwards

Director

LEGAL DIVISION

Charles Yi

General Counsel

DIVISION OF INSURANCE 

AND RESEARCH

Diane Ellis

Director

DIVISION OF DEPOSITOR 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mark E. Pearce

Director

OFFICE OF COMPLEX

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Arthur J. Murton

Director

DIVISION OF RISK 

MANAGEMENT SUPERVISION

Doreen R. Eberley

Director

DIVISION OF 

ADMINISTRATION

Arleas Upton Kea

Director

DIVISION OF FINANCE

Craig R. Jarvill

Director

CORPORATE UNIVERSITY

Suzannah L. Susser

Director

OFFICE OF MINORITY AND 

WOMEN INCLUSION

OFFICE OF 

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

Andy Jiminez

Director

OFFICE OF 

THE OMBUDSMAN

Cottrell L. Webster

Ombudsman

Segundo Pereira

Director

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Martin J. Gruenberg

FDIC

Chairman

Vacant

FDIC

Board Member

Thomas M. Hoenig

FDIC

Vice Chairman, Board Member

Thomas J. Curry

OCC

Board Member

Richard Cordray

CFPB

Board Member
154 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

CORPORATE STAFFING

STAFFING TRENDS 2006–2015

Note: 2008–2015 staffing totals reflect year-end full time equivalent staff. Before 2008, staffing totals reflect total employees on-board. 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

9000

6000

3000

0

4,476 4,532 4,988 6,557 8,150 7,973 7,476

FDIC Year–End On-Board Staffing

7,254 6,631 6,385
APPENDICES 155

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY DIVISION/OFFICE 2014 – 20151

Total Washington Regional/Field

Division or Office: 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014

Division of Risk Management Supervision 2,683 2,704 208 205 2,475 2,500

Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection 841 853 122 128 719 725

Division of Resolutions and Receiverships 719 884 149 159 570 725

Legal Division 564 601 356 375 208 226

Division of Administration 367 372 251 245 116 127

Division of Information Technology 319 324 252 254 67 70

Corporate University 194 205 187 196 7 9

Division of Insurance and Research 205 196 163 154 42 42

Division of Finance 171 170 169 168 2 2

Information Security and Privacy Staff 36 33 36 33 0 0

Office of Inspector General 119 115 74 73 46 42

Office of Complex Financial Institutions 62 68 52 59 10 9

Executive Offices2 22 23 22 23 0 0

Executive Support Offices 3 84 85 76 76 8 9

Total 6,385 6,631 2,115 2,147 4,270 4,485

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

staffing has been rounded to the nearest whole FTE. Totals may not foot due to rounding. 

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

Officer. 

3 Includes the Offices of Legislative Affairs, Communications, Ombudsman, Minority and Women Inclusion, and Corporate Risk Management.
156 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

FDIC Website

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 bank 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 

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 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 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 24 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, which is able to assist with over 40 

different languages.

Public Information Center 

3501 Fairfax Drive

Room E-1021

Arlington, VA 22226

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

703-562-2200

Fax: 703-562-2296

FDIC Online Catalog: https://catalog.fdic.gov

E-mail: publicinfo@fdic.gov

Publications such as FDIC Quarterly and 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 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 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.
APPENDICES 157

REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES

Atlanta Regional Office

Michael J. Dean, Regional Director

10 Tenth Street, NE

Suite 800

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(678) 916-2200

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Virginia

West Virginia

Dallas Regional Office

Kristie K. Elmquist, Regional Director

1601 Bryan Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 754-0098

Colorado

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

Kansas City Regional Office

James D. LaPierre, Regional Director

1100 Walnut Street

Suite 2100

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

(816) 234-8000

Iowa

Kansas

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

North Dakota

South Dakota

Chicago Regional Office

M. Anthony Lowe, Regional Director

300 South Riverside Plaza

Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 382-6000

Illinois

Indiana

Kentucky

Michigan

Ohio

Wisconsin

Memphis Area Office

Kristie K. Elmquist, Director

6060 Primacy Parkway

Suite 300

Memphis, Tennessee 38119

(901) 685-1603

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Tennessee

New York Regional Office

John F. Vogel, Regional Director

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
158 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Boston Area Office

John F. Vogel, Director

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

Stanley R. Ivie, Regional Director

25 Jessie Street at Ecker Square

Suite 2300

San Francisco, California 94105

(415) 546-0160

Alaska

American Samoa

Arizona

California

Federated States of Micronesia

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Montana

Nevada

Oregon

Utah

Washington

Wyoming
APPENDICES 159

C. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR 

GENERAL’S ASSESSMENT 

OF THE MANAGEMENT AND 

PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES 

FACING THE FDIC 

Under the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, 

the Office of Inspector General (OIG) identifies 

the management and performance challenges 

facing the FDIC and provides its assessment to the 

Corporation for inclusion in the FDIC’s annual 

performance and accountability report. In doing 

so, we keep in mind the FDIC’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 ongoing activities 

to address the issues involved. The OIG believes that 

the FDIC faces challenges in the critical areas listed 

below, a number of which carry over from last year. 

These challenges will continue to occupy much of the 

Corporation’s attention and require its sustained focus 

for the foreseeable future. 

Carrying Out Dodd-Frank Act 

Responsibilities

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act) created a 

comprehensive new regulatory and resolution 

framework designed to avoid the severe consequences 

of financial instability. Title I of the Dodd-Frank 

Act provides tools for regulators to impose enhanced 

supervision and prudential standards on systemically 

important financial institutions (SIFI). Title II 

provides the FDIC with a new orderly liquidation 

authority for SIFIs, subject to a systemic risk 

determination by statutorily designated regulators. 

The FDIC has made progress toward implementing 

its systemic resolution authorities under the DoddFrank Act, in large part due to the efforts of an 

active cross-divisional working group composed of 

senior FDIC officials, but challenges remain. These 

challenges involve the FDIC fulfilling its insurance, 

supervisory, receivership management, and resolution 

responsibilities as it meets the requirements of the 

Dodd-Frank Act. These responsibilities are crosscutting and are carried out by staff throughout the 

Corporation’s headquarters and regional divisions 

and offices, including in the Office of Complex 

Financial Institutions (OCFI), an office established 

in response to the Dodd-Frank Act. That office has 

taken steps to realign organizational responsibilities 

for Title I and Title II tasks in the interest of ensuring 

the most efficient and complementary efforts of staff 

involved in both. Staff members from the FDIC’s 

Division of Risk Management Supervision, Division 

of Resolutions and Receiverships (DRR), and Legal 

Division join OCFI in collaborative efforts and play 

key roles in implementing Titles I and II.

Those involved in Dodd-Frank Act activities will 

continue to evaluate the resolution plans submitted 

by the largest bank holding companies and other 

SIFIs under Title I, develop strategies for resolving 

SIFIs under Title II, work to promote cross-border 

cooperation for the orderly resolution of a global SIFI, 

and coordinate with the other regulators in developing 

policy to implement the provisions of the Act.

In a related vein, the FDIC will carry out risk 

assessments to identify supervisory, resolution, 

and insurance pricing-related risks in all insured 

depository institutions (IDIs) with more than $10 

billion in assets, including those for which the FDIC 

is not the PFR, in addition to systemically important 

bank holding companies and nonbank financial 

companies subject to Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Maintaining Strong Information Technology 

Security and Governance Practices

Essential to achieving the FDIC’s mission of 

maintaining stability and public confidence in the 

nation’s financial system is safeguarding sensitive 

information, including personally identifiable 

information that the FDIC collects and manages 

in its role as federal deposit insurer and regulator of 
160 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

state nonmember financial institutions. Further, as 

an employer, an acquirer of services, and a receiver 

for failed institutions, the FDIC obtains considerable 

amounts of sensitive information from its employees, 

contractors, and failed institutions. Increasingly 

sophisticated security risks and global connectivity 

have resulted in both internal and external risks 

to that sensitive information. Internal risks at the 

FDIC include errors and fraudulent or malevolent 

acts by employees or contractors working within the 

organization who may, for example, exfiltrate sensitive 

data from the workplace—so called “insider threats.” 

External threats include a growing number of cyberbased attacks that can come from a variety of sources, 

such as hackers, criminals, foreign nations, terrorists, 

and other adversarial groups. Such threats underscore 

the importance of a strong, enterprise-wide program 

that implements strategies to enhance cybersecurity 

within both the FDIC and the banking industry. 

Going forward, a challenging priority for the FDIC 

will be to maintain effective communication and 

collaboration among all parties involved in ensuring a 

robust, secure information technology (IT) operating 

environment that meets the day-to-day and longerterm needs of the FDIC employees who depend on it. 

In that regard, as we pointed out in recent work under 

the Federal Information Security Modernization Act 

of 2014, the Corporation will need to ensure that 

the skills, training, oversight, and resource allocations 

pertaining to division and office information security 

managers enable them to successfully carry out their 

responsibilities. The FDIC has also relied heavily 

on its infrastructure services contract to support IT 

operations and implement security controls. If not 

properly managed, problems that affect the FDIC’s 

IT operations could ensue. In addition, given the 

substantial financial investment in FDIC systems 

and related human resources, the Corporation needs 

to consider the cost-effectiveness and measurable 

business value outcomes in its decisions to fund major 

IT projects to ensure effective stewardship of millions 

of dollars in IT investments.

The Corporation will also need to ensure that its 

continuity of operations and disaster recovery plans 

are effective in addressing the negative impacts of 

natural disasters or other catastrophic events that 

disrupt its business processes and activities and 

other government activities. In this regard, in 

2014, the FDIC placed into operation a Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) to meet 

continuity of operations requirements for a Level 2 

agency. The SCIF was constructed to standards of 

Intelligence Community Directive 705, Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facilities. The FDIC 

reported that the SCIF received physical security 

accreditation in August 2014 and that equipment 

was purchased to enable communications testing and 

assessments planned in the future. Such a facility 

can help ensure the security of the FDIC’s systems 

and infrastructure and facilitate communications 

with other federal agencies if a widespread emergency 

occurs.

Maintaining Effective Supervision and 

Preserving Community Banking

The FDIC’s supervision program promotes the safety 

and soundness of FDIC-supervised IDIs. The FDIC 

is the PFR for 4,037 FDIC-insured, state-chartered 

institutions that are not members of the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System. As such, 

the FDIC is the lead federal regulator for the majority 

of community banks. We have pointed out in our 

past work that a key lesson from the crisis is the need 

for earlier regulatory response when risks are building. 

Even now, for example, as they operate in a postcrisis environment, banks may be tempted to take 

additional risks, engage in imprudent concentrations, 

or loosen underwriting standards. Some banks are 

also introducing new products or lines of business 

or seeking new sources for non-interest income, all 

of which can lead to interest rate risk, credit risk, 

operational risk, and reputational risk. Such risks 

need to be managed and addressed early-on during 

the “good times” before a period of downturn. FDIC 

examiners need to identify problems, bring them to 

bank management’s attention, follow up on problems, 

bring enforcement actions as needed, and be alert 

to such risks as Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-
APPENDICES 161

laundering issues. In doing so, the Corporation 

needs to execute its supervisory authority in a fair, 

consistent manner. With respect to important 

international concerns, the FDIC also needs to 

support development of sound global regulatory 

policy through participation on the Basel Committee 

on Bank Supervision and other related sub-groups.

In light of technological changes, increased use of 

technology service providers (TSP), new delivery 

channels, and cyber threats, the FDIC’s IT 

examination program needs to be proactive and 

bankers and Boards of Directors need to ensure 

a strong control environment and sound risk 

management and governance practices in their 

institutions. Importantly, with respect to TSPs, 

one TSP can service hundreds or even thousands of 

financial institutions, so that the impact of security 

incidents in one TSP can have devastating ripple 

effects on those institutions. Controls need to be 

designed not only to protect sensitive customer 

information at banks and TSPs, but also to guard 

against intrusions that can compromise the integrity 

and availability of operations, information and 

transaction processing systems, and data. Given 

the complexities of the range of cyber threats, the 

FDIC needs to ensure its examination workforce has 

the needed expertise to effectively carry out its IT 

examination responsibilities.

The FDIC has tried over the past year to enhance 

the Corporation’s IT supervision program for 

FDIC-supervised institutions and TSPs to focus 

on information security, cybersecurity, and 

business continuity. In the coming months, the 

Corporation needs to continue efforts, along with 

the other regulators, to address these risks and use all 

available supervisory and legal authorities to ensure 

the continued safety and soundness of financial 

institutions and affiliated third-party entities. It also 

needs to ensure effective information-sharing about 

security incidents with regulatory parties and other 

federal groups established to combat cyber threats, in 

an increasingly interconnected world.

The FDIC Chairman continues to emphasize 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. 

Local communities and small businesses rely heavily 

on community banks for credit and other essential 

financial services. These banks foster economic 

growth and help to ensure that the financial resources 

of the local community are put to work on its behalf. 

Consolidations and other far-reaching changes in 

the U.S. financial sector in recent decades have 

made community banks a smaller part of the U.S. 

financial system. The FDIC has sought to identify 

and implement changes to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the community bank risk management 

and compliance examination processes, while still 

maintaining supervisory standards. To ensure the 

continued strength of the community banks, the 

Corporation will also need to sustain initiatives such 

as ongoing research, technical assistance to the banks 

by way of training videos on key risk management 

and consumer compliance matters, and continuous 

dialogue with community banking groups.

Maintaining a strong examination program, 

conducting vigilant supervisory activities for both 

small and large banks, applying lessons learned, 

being attuned to harmful cyber threats in financial 

institutions and technology service providers, and 

preserving community banking will be critical to 

ensuring stability and continued confidence in the 

financial system going forward. 

Carrying Out Current and Future Resolution 

and Receivership Responsibilities

One of the FDIC’s most important roles is acting 

as the receiver or liquidating agent for failed FDICinsured institutions. The FDIC’s responsibilities 

include planning and efficiently handling the 

resolutions of failing FDIC-insured institutions 

and providing prompt, responsive, and efficient 

administration of failing and failed financial 

institutions in order to maintain confidence and 

stability in our financial system. 

As part of the resolution process, the FDIC values 

a failing federally insured depository institution, 
162 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

markets it, solicits and accepts bids for the sale of 

the institution, considers the least costly resolution 

method, determines which bid to accept, and works 

with the acquiring institution through the closing 

process. The receivership process involves performing 

the closing function at the failed bank; liquidating 

any remaining assets; and distributing any proceeds to 

the FDIC, the bank customers, general creditors, and 

those with approved claims.

The FDIC places great emphasis on promptly 

marketing and selling the assets of failed institutions 

and terminating the receivership quickly. Although 

the number of institution failures has fallen 

dramatically since the crisis, these activities still pose 

challenges to the Corporation. As of December 31, 

2015, DRR was managing 446 active receiverships 

with assets in liquidation totaling about $4.8 billion. 

In addition, through purchase and assumption 

agreements with acquiring institutions, the 

Corporation has entered into shared-loss agreements 

(SLA). Since loss sharing began during the most 

recent crisis in November 2008, the Corporation 

has resolved 304 failures with accompanying SLAs. 

Under these agreements, the FDIC agrees to absorb 

a portion of the loss—generally 80 to 95 percent—

which may be experienced by the acquiring institution 

with regard to those assets, for a period of up to ten 

years. The initial asset balance of the covered assets in 

these SLAs was $216.5 billion. As of December 31, 

2015, 215 receiverships still had active SLAs, with a 

covered asset balance at that time of $31.5 billion. 

As another resolution strategy, the FDIC entered 

into 35 structured sales transactions involving 

43,315 assets with a total unpaid principal balance 

of $26.2 billion. Under these arrangements, the 

FDIC receiverships retain a participation interest 

in future net positive cash flows derived from thirdparty management of these assets. As of December 

31, 2015, the unpaid principal balance in 34 active 

arrangements was $3.3 billion. The FDIC will 

continue to evaluate termination offers from limited 

liability company (LLC) managing members in 

deciding whether to pursue dissolution of the LLCs if 

in the best economic interest of the receiverships. 

As time passes and recovery from the crisis continues, 

these risk sharing agreements will continue to 

wind down and certain active receiverships will be 

terminated. Given the substantial dollar value and 

risks associated with the risk-sharing activities and 

other receivership operations, the FDIC needs to 

ensure continuous monitoring and effective oversight 

to protect the FDIC’s financial interests. 

Given improving conditions in the economy and 

financial system, the Corporation has reshaped its 

workforce and adjusted its budget and resources 

accordingly. Notably, in the case of the FDIC’s 

resolutions and receiverships workforce, authorized 

staffing fell from a peak of 2,460 in 2010 to 

authorized staffing of 756 for 2015. DRR will 

continue to substantially reduce its nonpermanent 

staff each year, based on declining workload. 

These staff reductions bring with them a loss of 

specialized experience and expertise. As discussed in 

connection with the Dodd-Frank Act responsibilities, 

the Corporation must continue to review the 

resolution plans of large bank holding companies and 

designated nonbank holding companies to ensure 

their resolvability under the Bankruptcy Code, if 

necessary, and in cases where their failure would 

threaten financial stability, administer their orderly 

liquidation. Carrying out such activities could pose 

significant challenges to those remaining staff in DRR 

who could be called upon to lead critical resolution 

activities.

Ensuring the Continued Strength of 

the Deposit Insurance Fund 

Insuring deposits remains at the heart of the FDIC’s 

commitment to maintain stability and public 

confidence in the nation’s financial system. To 

maintain sufficient Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) 

balances, the FDIC collects risk-based insurance 

premiums from insured institutions and invests 

deposit insurance funds. In response to the DoddFrank Act and in the interest of protecting and 

insuring depositors, the Corporation has designed 

a long-term DIF management plan. This plan 
APPENDICES 163

complements the Restoration Plan, which is designed 

to ensure that the DIF reserve ratio will reach 1.35 

percent by September 30, 2020. As of September 30, 

2015, the reserve ratio had reached 1.09 percent. 

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, FDIC-insured 

institutions continue to make gradual but steady 

progress. Continuing to replenish the DIF in a 

post-crisis environment is a critical activity for the 

FDIC. The DIF balance had dropped below negative 

$20 billion during the worst time of the crisis. As 

of December 31, 2015, the DIF balance was $72.6 

billion, an increase of $9.8 billion over the year-end 

2014 balance of $62.8 billion.

While the fund is considerably stronger than it 

has been, the FDIC must continue to monitor the 

emerging risks that can threaten fund solvency in 

the interest of continuing to provide the insurance 

coverage that depositors have come to rely upon. 

In that regard, the FDIC will need to continue to 

regularly disseminate data and analysis on issues 

and risks affecting the financial services industry 

to bankers, supervisors, the public, and other 

stakeholders.

Given the volatility of the global markets and financial 

systems, new risks can emerge without warning and 

threaten the safety and soundness of U.S. financial 

institutions and the viability of the DIF. The FDIC 

must be prepared for such a possibility. As part of 

its efforts, the FDIC needs to continue collaborating 

with others involved in helping to ensure financial 

stability and protect the DIF. One important means 

of doing so is through participation on the Financial 

Stability Oversight Council, created under the DoddFrank Act. This Council was established to provide 

comprehensive monitoring of stability in the U.S. 

financial system by identifying and responding to 

emerging risks to U.S. financial stability and by 

promoting market discipline. 

The FDIC will also be challenged to contribute to 

global financial stability by continuing its engagement 

with strategically important foreign jurisdictions and 

playing a leadership role in international organizations 

that support robust, effective deposit insurance 

systems, resolution programs, and bank supervision 

practices around the globe. 

Promoting Consumer Protections 

and Economic Inclusion

The FDIC carries out its consumer protection role 

by providing consumers with access to information 

about their rights and disclosures that are required 

by federal laws and regulations. Importantly, it also 

examines the banks where the FDIC is the PFR to 

determine the institutions’ compliance with laws 

and regulations governing consumer protection, fair 

lending, and community investment. These activities 

require regular collaboration with other regulatory 

agencies. In particular, the FDIC coordinates with 

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created 

under the Dodd-Frank Act, on consumer issues of 

mutual interest and to meet statutory requirements 

for consultation relating to rulemakings in mortgage 

lending and other types of consumer financial 

services and products. The FDIC will need to 

continue to assess the impact of such rulemakings on 

supervised institutions, communicate key changes to 

stakeholders, and train examination staff accordingly. 

The FDIC continues to work 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 consumers and 

the economy, especially the needs of creditworthy 

households that may experience distress. One of 

the challenges articulated by the FDIC Chairman 

is to continue to increase access to financial services 

for the unbanked and underbanked in the United 

States. The Corporation will continue to develop 

and implement targeted strategies to expand access 

to mainstream financial institutions by populations 

that are disproportionately likely to be unbanked or 

underbanked. Input from the FDIC’s 2015 National 

Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households

will inform those strategies. In addition, the FDIC’s 

Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion, 

composed of bankers, community and consumer 
164 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

organizations, and academics, will continue to explore 

ways of bringing the unbanked into the financial 

mainstream. The FDIC’s Alliance for Economic 

Inclusion initiative seeks to collaborate with financial 

institutions; community organizations; local, state, 

and federal agencies; and other partners to form 

broad-based coalitions to bring unbanked and 

underbanked consumers and small businesses into the 

financial mainstream. 

The FDIC will need to sustain ongoing efforts to 

carry out required compliance and community 

reinvestment examinations, coordinate with the 

other financial regulators and CFPB on regulatory 

matters involving financial products and services, and 

pursue and measure the success of economic inclusion 

initiatives to the benefit of the American public. 

Implementing Workforce Changes 

and Budget Reductions 

During the 2015 planning and budget process, the 

Corporation reassessed its current and projected 

workload along with trends within the banking 

industry and the broader economy.  Based on that 

review, the FDIC expects a continuation of steady 

improvements in the global economy, a small number 

of insured institution failures, gradual reductions in 

post-failure receivership management workload, and 

significant further reductions in the number of 3-, 

4-, and 5-rated institutions.  While the FDIC will 

continue to need some temporary and term employees 

over the next several years to complete the residual 

workload from the financial crisis, industry trends 

confirm that there will be a steadily decreasing 

need for nonpermanent employees over the next 

several years.

Given those circumstances, the FDIC Board of 

Directors approved a $2.32 billion Corporate 

Operating Budget for 2015, 3.0 percent lower than 

the 2014 budget. In conjunction with its approval 

of the 2015 budget, the Board also approved an 

authorized 2015 staffing level of 6,886 positions, 

down from 7,200 previously authorized, a net 

reduction of 314 positions. This was the fifth 

consecutive reduction in the FDIC’s annual 

operating budget.

As conditions improve throughout the industry and 

the economy, the FDIC will continue its efforts to 

achieve the appropriate level of resources; at the 

same time, however, it needs to remain mindful 

of ever-present risks and other uncertainties in the 

economy that may prompt the need for additional 

resources and new skill sets and expertise that may 

be challenging to obtain. The need for these new 

skill sets comes at a time when the Corporation is 

focusing on succession management, in light of a 

substantial number of FDIC staff who are retiring. In 

that regard, the FDIC is continuing to work toward 

integrated workforce development processes as it 

seeks to bring on the best people to meet its changing 

needs and priorities, and do so in a timely manner. 

Most recently, the Corporation has emphasized its 

Workforce Development Initiative as a means of 

fulfilling the FDIC’s future leadership and workforce 

capability needs. 

The FDIC has long promoted diversity and 

inclusion initiatives in the workplace. Section 342 

of the Dodd-Frank Act reiterates the importance 

of standards for assessing diversity policies and 

practices and developing procedures to ensure the fair 

inclusion and utilization of women and minorities 

in the FDIC’s contractor workforce. The DoddFrank Act also points to the Office of Minority and 

Women Inclusion as being instrumental in diversity 

and inclusion initiatives within the FDIC working 

environment. This office needs to ensure that it has 

the proper staff, expertise, and organizational structure 

to successfully carry out its advisory responsibilities 

to ensure diversity and inclusion throughout the 

Corporation.

The FDIC needs to sustain its emphasis on 

fostering employee engagement and morale on 

the part of all staff in headquarters, regions, and 

field locations. Its diversity and inclusion goals 

and initiatives, Workplace Excellence Program, 

and Workforce Development Initiative are positive 
APPENDICES 165

steps in that direction and should continue to help 

create a workplace that promotes diversity and equal 

opportunity. 

Ensuring Effective Enterprise 

Risk Management Practices

Enterprise risk management is a critical aspect of 

governance at the FDIC. Notwithstanding a stronger 

economy and financial services industry, the FDIC’s 

enterprise risk management framework and related 

activities need to be attuned to emerging risks, both 

internal and external to the FDIC that can threaten 

key business processes and corporate success. As 

evidenced in the challenges discussed above, certain 

difficult issues may fall within the purview of a single 

division or office, while others are cross-cutting within 

the FDIC, and others involve coordination with the 

other financial regulators and other external parties. 

The Corporation needs to maintain effective controls, 

mechanisms, and risk models that can address a wide 

range of concerns—from specific, everyday risks such 

as those posed by personnel security practices and 

records management activities, for example, to the far 

broader concerns of the ramifications of an unwanted 

and harmful cyber attack or the failure of a large bank 

or systemically important financial institution.

The Corporation’s stakeholders—including the 

Congress, American people, media, and others— 

expect effective governance, sound risk management 

practices, and vigilant regulatory oversight of the 

financial services industry. The Corporation needs to 

maintain the trust and confidence that it has instilled 

over the years. The FDIC Board of Directors, senior 

management, and individuals at every working level 

throughout the FDIC need to understand current 

and emerging risks to the FDIC mission and be 

prepared to take necessary steps to mitigate those risks 

as changes occur and challenging scenarios that can 

undermine the FDIC’s short- and long-term success 

present themselves.
166 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

AEI Alliance for Economic Inclusion

AMC Appraisal management company

AML Anti-Money Laundering

ANPR Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

ASBA Association of Supervisors of Banks of the 

Americas

BCBS Basel Committee on Banking Supervision

BCP Business Continuity Planning

BSA Bank Secrecy Act

Call Report Consolidated Reports of Condition and 

Income

CAMELS 

rating scale Capital adequacy; Asset quality; Management 

quality; Earnings; Liquidity; Sensitivity to 

market risks

CAS Claims Administration System

CCIWG Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure 

Working Group

CCP Central counterparties

CDFI Community Development Financial 

Institution

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CEP Corporate Employee Program

CFI Complex Financial Institution

CFO Act Chief Financial Officers’ Act

CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

CFR Center for Financial Research

CFTC Commodity Futures Trading Commission

CMP Civil Money Penalty

ComE-IN Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion

CRA Community Reinvestment Act

CRE Commercial real estate

CVSS Common Vulnerability Scoring System

DFA Dodd-Frank Act

DGP Debt guarantee program

DIF Deposit Insurance Fund

DRR Designated Reserve Ratio

EC European Commission

EDIE Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator

EGRPRA Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1996

ETS Examination Tools Suite

FAQ Frequently Asked Questions

FDI ACT Federal Deposit Insurance Act

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FFIEC Federal Financial Institutions Examination 

Council

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement 

Act

FHFA Federal Housing Finance Agency

FIL Financial Institution Letter

FIS Financial Institution Specialist

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act

FMSP Financial Management Scholars Program

FRB Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System

FRF FSLIC Resolution Fund

FSAP Financial Sector Assessment Program

FSB Financial Stability Board

FS-ISAC Financial Services Information Sharing and 

Analysis Center

FSLIC Federal Savings and Loan Insurance 

Corporation

FSOC Financial Stability Oversight Council

FSVC Financial Services Volunteer Corps

GAAP Generally accepted accounting principles

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

G-SIFIs Global Systemically Important Financial 

Institutions

IADI International Association of Deposit Insurers

IDI Insured depository institution

IMF International Monetary Fund

IMFB IndyMac Federal Bank

IT Information technology

LCR Liquidity coverage ratio

LIDI Large Insured Depository Institution

LLC Limited Liability Company

LMI Low- or moderate-income

LURA Land use restriction agreements

MDI Minority depository institutions

MFA Multi-Factor Authentication

D. ACRONYMS
APPENDICES 167

MOL Maximum Obligation Limitation

MOU Memoranda of Understanding

MRBA Matters Requiring Board Attention

MWOB Minority- and women-owned business

MWOLF Minority- and women-owned law firms 

NCUA National Credit Union Administration

NPR Notice of proposed rulemaking

NSFR Net Stable Funding Ratio

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

OFAC Office of Foreign Assets Control

OLA Orderly Liquidation Authority

OLF Orderly Liquidation Fund

OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget

OPM U.S. Office of Personnel Management

OTC Over-the-counter

OTS Office of Thrift Supervision

P&A Purchase and assumption

PFR Primary federal regulator

QBP Quarterly Banking Profile

ReSG FSB’s Resolution Steering Group

RESPA Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

RTC Resolution Trust Corporation

SBA Small Business Administration

SCIF Sensitive Compartment Information Facility

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission

SIFI Systemically Important Financial Institution

SRM Single Resolution Mechanism

SLA Shared-loss agreement

SMS Systemic Monitoring System

SNC Program Shared National Credit Program

SNM State Nonmember

SRAC Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee

SRB Single Resolution Board

SRM Single Resolution Mechanism

SSGN Structured sale of guaranteed note

TLGP Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program

TSP Federal Thrift Savings Plan

TSP (IT-related) Technology service providers

VIE Variable interest entity

WE Workplace Excellence