106

VI. Appendices 

A p p e n d i x A - K e y S t a t i s t i c s

	 	 	 	 	 	

 FRF

$ 2,000

 1,500

 1,000

 500

 0

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

FDIC Expenditures 1997-20

The FDIC’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan provide 

the basis for annual planning and budgeting for needed resources. 

The 2007 aggregate budget (for corporate, receivership and 

investment spending) was $1.12 billion, while actual expenditures 

for the year were $1.01 billion, about $16 million more than 2006 

expenditures.

Over the past ten years, the FDIC’s expenditures have varied 

in response to workload. During the past decade, expenditures 

generally declined due to decreasing resolution and receivership 

activity. Total expenditures increased in 2002 due to an increase 

in receivership-related expenses. 

The largest component of FDIC spending is for costs associated 

with staffing. Staffing increased by one percent in 2007, from 

4,476 employees at the beginning of the year to 4,532 at the 

end of the year.

D o l l a r s i n M i l l i o n s

Notes:

The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) includes expenditures of the former Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the 

Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF). The FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF) includes expenditures relating 

to the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) and the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC).
107

Estimated Insured Deposits and the Deposit Insurance Fund, December 31, 1934, through September 30, 20071 

1

2

3

For 2007, the numbers are as of September 30, and prior years reflect December 31.

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

determined from the June 30 Call Reports.

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

For 1989 through 2005, amounts represent sum of separate BIF and SAIF amounts.

Deposits in Insured Institutions Insurance Fund as a Percentage of

2007 $ 100,000 $ 6,881,843 $ 4,241,307 61.6 $ 51,754.4 0.75 1.22

2006 100,000 6,595,357 4,151,966 63.0 50,165.3 0.76 1.21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1984 100,000 1,806,520 1,389,874 76.9 16,529.4 0.92 1.19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1974 40,000 833,277 520,309 62.5 6,124.2 0.73 1.18

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

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

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

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

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

1968 15,000 491,513 296,701 60.2 3,749.2 0.76 1.26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1947 5,000 154,096 76,254 49.5 1,006.1 0.65 1.32

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

1945 5,000 157,174 67,021 42.4 929.2 0.59 1.39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Total Estimated Percentage Deposit Total Estimated

 Insurance Domestic Insured of Insured Insurance Domestic Insured

Year 4 Coverage Deposits Deposits Deposits Fund Deposits Deposits 2

3

D o l l a r s i n m i l l i o n s

4
108

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

September 11, 1933, through December 31, 2007

Income

4

3

5

continued on next page

Interest Funding

Investment Effective Provision Administrative and Other Transfer from

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

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

Expenses and Losses

Total $ 110,388.7 $ 62,909.8 $ 6,709.1 $ 54,777.0 $ 59,216.0 $ 36,191.8 $ 15,834.3 $ 7,195.9 $ 139.5 $ 51,312.2

2007 3,196.2 642.9 0.0 2,553.3 0.0094% 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 60.6 0.0 2,359.9 0.0010% 809.5 (160.2) 966.2 3.5 0 1,611.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1989 3,496.6 1,885.0 0.0 1,611.6 0.0833% 4,352.2 3,811.3 219.9 321.0 5.6 (850.0)

1988 3,347.7 1,773.0 0.0 1,574.7 0.0833% 7,588.4 6,298.3 223.9 1,066.2 0 (4,240.7)

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

1986 3,260.1 1,516.9 0.0 1,743.2 0.0833% 2,963.7 2,827.7 180.3 (44.3) 0 296.4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1976 764.9 676.1 379.6 468.4 0.0370% 212.3 28.0 180.4 3.9 0 552.6

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

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

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

1972 467.0 468.8 280.3 278.5 0.0333% 59.7 10.1 49.6 6.0 0 407.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D o l l a r s i n M i l l i o n s

7
109

The effective rates from 1950 through 1984 vary from the statutory rate of 0.0833 percent due to assessment credits provided in those years. The statutory rate increased to 0.12 percent 

in 1990 and to a minimum of 0.15 percent in 1991. The effective rates in 1991 and 1992 vary because the FDIC exercised new authority to increase assessments above the statutory rate 

when needed. Beginning in 1993, the effective rate is based on a risk-related premium system under which institutions pay assessments in the range of 0.23 percent to 0.31 percent. 

In May 1995, the BIF reached the mandatory recapitalization level of 1.25 percent. As a result, BIF assessment rates were reduced to a range of 0.04 percent to 0.31 percent of assessable 

deposits, effective June 1995, and assessments totaling $1.5 billion were refunded in September 1995. Assessment rates for BIF were lowered again to a range of 0 to 0.27 percent of 

assessable deposits, effective the start of 1996. In 1996, the SAIF collected a one-time special assessment of $4.5 billion that fully capitalized the fund. Consequently, assessment rates 

for SAIF were lowered to the same range as DIF, 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. 

These expenses, which are presented as operating expenses in the Statements of Income and Fund Balance, pertain to the FDIC in its corporate capacity only and do not include 

costs that are charged to the failed bank receiverships that are managed by the FDIC. The receivership expenses are presented as part of the “Receivables from Resolutions, net” line 

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

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

Includes $105.6 million net loss on government securities.

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

Includes interest paid on capital stock. 

For 1989 through 2005, amounts represent sum of separate BIF and SAIF amounts.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

Income

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

September 11, 1933, through December 31, 2007 (continued)

Interest Funding

Investment Effective Provision Administrative and Other Transfer from

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

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

Expenses and Losses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1948 145.6 119.3 0.0 26.3 0.0833% 7.0 0.7 6.3 0.0 0 138.6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D o l l a r s i n M i l l i o n s

7
110

All Cases

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

1934 through 2007

1

Number

of Estimated

Banks/ Total Total Additional Estimated

Year Thrifts Assets Deposits Disbursements Recoveries Recoveries Losses

Total 2,237 $ 304,015,397 $ 248,393,951 $ 116,900,087 $ 77,665,701 $ 797,140 $ 38,437,246

2007 3 2,614,928 2,026,648 1,909,549 1,315,770 474,240 119,539

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2004 4 165,866 145,885 138,895 134,978 0 3,917

2003 3 1,096,724 903,504 883,772 812,933 4,852 65,987 

2002 11 2,557,811 2,175,043 2,068,519 1,628,771 63,928 375,820

2001 4 2,234,253 1,610,474 1,605,147 1,113,270 220,457 271,420 

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

1999 8 1,486,775 1,331,578 1,307,045 685,154 6,324 615,567 

1998 3 370,400 335,076 286,678 52,248 8,388 226,042 

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

1996 6 215,078 200,973 201,533 140,904 0 60,629 

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

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

1993 42 4,405,373 3,827,177 3,841,658 3,199,024 9,884 632,750

1992 122 44,231,922 41,184,366 14,175,372 10,506,614 1,772 3,666,986

1991 127 63,203,713 53,832,141 21,196,493 15,197,510 2,636 5,996,347 

1990 169 15,676,700 14,488,900 10,817,419 8,041,634 4,659 2,771,126

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deposit Assumption Cases

Total 1,487 $ 225,210,798 $ 187,228,603 $ 89,334,347 $ 60,163,198 $ 734,127 $ 28,437,022

2007 3 2,614,928 2,026,648 1,909,549 1,315,770 474,240 119,539

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004 3 150,520 132,880 132,781 128,864 0 3,917

2003 3 1,096,724 903,504 883,772 812,933 4,852 65,987

2002 6 569,332 511,782 483,461 342,991 5,574 134,896

2001 4 2,234,253 1.610,474 1,605,147 1,113,270 220,457 271,420

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

1999 8 1,486,775 1,331,578 1,307,045 685,154 6,324 615,567

1998 3 370,400 335,076 286,678 52,248 8,388 226,042

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

1996 6 215,078 200,973 201,533 140,904 0 60,629

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

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

1993 37 4,098,618 3,556,005 3,580,297 3,036,275 9,884 534,138

1992 95 42,147,689 39,132,496 12,280,562 9,104,192 1,772 3,174,598

1991 103 61,593,332 52,274,435 19,938,700 14,410,415 2,636 5,525,649

1990 148 13,138,300 12,215,600 8,629,084 6,397,473 0 2,231,611

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number

of Estimated

Banks/ Total Total Additional Estimated

Year Thrifts Assets Deposits Disbursements Recoveries Recoveries Losses

D o l l a r s i n T h o u s a n d s

3

3
111

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

1934 through 2007 (continued)

Assistance Transactions

1

2

Totals do not include dollar amounts for 

the five open bank assistance transactions 

between 1971 and 1980. Excludes eight 

transactions prior to 1962 that required 

no disbursements. Also, disbursements, 

recoveries, and estimated additional 

recoveries do not include working 

capital advances to and repayments 

by receiverships.

Includes insured deposit transfer cases.

For 1989 through 2005, amounts represent 

sum of separate BIF and SAIF amounts.

Note: 

Total Assets and Total Deposits data is based 

upon the last Call Report filed by institution 

prior to failure. 

Beginning with the 1997 Annual Report, 

the number of banks in the Assistance 

Transactions column for 1988 was changed 

from 21 to 80 and the number of banks 

in the All Cases column was changed from 

221 to 280 to reflect that one assistance 

transaction encompassed 60 institutions. 

Also, certain 1982, 1983, 1989 and 1992 

resolutions previously reported in either 

the Deposit Payoff or Deposit Assumption 

categories were reclassified.

2 Deposit Payoff Cases

Total 609 $ 18,687,250 $ 17,157,091 $ 15,935,384 $ 11,302,628 $ 63,013 $ 4,569,743

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

2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2002 5 1,988,479 1,663,261 1,585,058 1,285,780 58,354 240,924

2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1993 5 306,755 271,172 261,361 162,749 0 98,612

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

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

1990 20 2,522,500 2,257,700 2,183,400 1,641,564 4,659 537,177

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number

of Estimated

Banks/ Total Total Additional Estimated

Year Thrifts Assets Deposit Disbursements Recoveries Recoveries Losses

Number

of Estimated

Banks/ Total Total Additional Estimated

Year Thrifts Assets Deposits Disbursements Recoveries Recoveries Losses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D o l l a r s i n T h o u s a n d s

3

3

3
112

Estimated

Receivership

Year 2 Total Assets Deposits Loss Loss to Funds

Total 748 $ 395,017,406 $ 318,328,770 $ 75,318,451 $ 81,584,813

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

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

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

1992 59 44,196,946 34,773,224 3,234,872 3,780,109

1991 144 78,898,904 65,173,122 8,625,587 9,123,993

1990 213 129,662,498 98,963,962 16,063,996 19,258,889

19895 318 134,519,630 113,168,009 47,086,737 49,314,261

D o l l a r s i n T h o u s a n d s

3 4

Prior to July 1, 1995, all thrift closings were the responsibility of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). Since the RTC was terminated on December 31, 1995, and all assets and liabilities 

transferred to the FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF), all the results of the thrift closing activity from 1989 through 1995 are now reflected on FRF’s books. 

Year is the year of failure, not the year of resolution.

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

the FRF.

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

on Federal Financing Bank debt, interest expense on escrowed funds, and interest revenue on advances to receiverships, in addition to the estimated losses for receiverships.

Total for 1989 excludes nine failures of the former FSLIC.

1

2

3

4

5

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

Taken Over or Closed Because of Financial Difficulties, 1989 through 19951
113

 FDIC-Insured Institutions Closed During 2007

 D o l l a r s i n T h o u s a n d s

1

1

2

Number of Date of Receiver/

 Name and Bank Deposit Total Total FDIC Estimated Closing or Assuming Bank

 Location Class Accounts Assets Deposits Disbursements Loss Acquisition and Location

Purchase and Assumption – Insured Deposits

Metropolitan Savings Bank Allegheny Valley Bank

Pittsburgh, PA SB 1,534 $ 15,760 $ 17,587 $ 17,671 $ 8,906 02-02-07 Pittsburgh, PA

NetBank	 ING Bank

Alpharetta, GA SB 174,555 $ 2,473,806 $ 1,944,096 $ 1,835,466 $ 107,664 09-28-07 Wilmington, DE

Miami Valley Bank Citizens Banking Company

Lakeview, OH NM 3,938 $ 125,362 $ 64,965 $ 56,412 $ 2,969 10-04-07 Sandusky, OH

Codes for NM– N SB – SM – 

Bank Class: State-chartered bank that is not National bank Savings Bank State-chartered bank that is a member 

 a member of the Federal Reserve System of the Federal Reserve System

 Estimated losses are as of December 31, 2007. Estimated losses are routinely adjusted with updated information from new appraisals and asset sales, which ultimately affect the asset 

 values and projected recoveries.

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

2 2
114

2007 2006 2005

Deposit Insurance	 215 142 219

 Approved 215 142 219

 Denied 0 0 0

New Branches	 1,480 1,257 1,575

 Approved 1,480 1,257 1,575

 Denied 0 0 0

Mergers	 306 229 286

 Approved 306 229 286

 Denied 0 0 0

Requests for Consent to Serve●

177 138 170

 Approved 177 138 170

 Section 19 24 11 13

 Section 32 153 127 157

 Denied 0 0 0

 Section 19 0 0 0

 Section 32 0 0 0

Notices of Change in Control	 17 3 9

 Letters of Intent Not to Disapprove 15 2 9

 Disapproved 2 1 0

Brokered Deposit Waivers	 22 26

 Approved 22 26 40

 Denied 0 0 0

Savings Association Activities■54 33 59

 Approved 54 33 59

 Denied 0 0 0

State Bank Activities/Investments▼21 14 18

 Approved 21 14 18

 Denied 0 0 0

Conversions of Mutual Institutions	 10 9 11

 Non-Objection 10 9 11

 Objection 0 0 0

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

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

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

or is otherwise in troubled condition.

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

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

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

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

FDIC Actions on Financial Institutions Applications 2005-2007

●

■

▼

40
115

2007	 2006	 2005

Total Number of Actions Initiated by the FDIC	 208 244 192

Termination of Insurance

		 Involuntary Termination	

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

		 Voluntary Termination

		 	 Sec. 8a By Order Upon Request 0 1 0

		 	 Sec. 8p No Deposits 2 2 2

		 	 Sec. 8q Deposits Assumed 4 3 11

Sec. 8b Cease-and-Desist Actions	

		 Notices of Charges Issued ●3 0 0

		 Consent Orders 48 29 20

Sec. 8e Removal/Prohibition of Director orOfficer

		 Notices of Intention to Remove/Prohibit 1 3 2

		 Consent Orders 40 89 73

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

Civil Money Penalties Issued	

		 	 Sec. 7a Call Report Penalties 0 0 0

		 	 Sec. 8i Civil Money Penalties 96 93 69

Sec. 10c Orders of Investigation	 7 17 15

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

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

Truth-in-Lending Act Reimbursement Actions	

		 Denials of Requests for Relief 0 0 0

		 Grants of Relief 0 2 0

		 Banks Making Reimbursement ●91 110 78

Suspicious Activity Reports (Open and closed institutions)●137,548 119,384 102,080

Other Actions Not Listed7 5 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.

Other Actions Not Listed includes six Section 19 Waiver grants and one Other Formal Action.

Compliance, Enforcement and Other Related Legal Actions 2005-2007

●
116

experience includes serving as 

Assistant Secretary for Financial 

Institutions at the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury (2001 to 2002), 

Senior Vice President for Government 

Relations of the New York Stock 

Exchange (1995 to 2000), a 

Commissioner and Acting Chairman 

of the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (1991 to 1995), and 

Research Director, Deputy Counsel 

and Counsel to Senate Majority 

Leader Robert Dole (1981 to 1988). 

While an academic, Chairman Bair 

also served on the FDIC’s Advisory 

Committee on Banking Policy. 

Chairman Bair’s prior work focused 

heavily on the banking sector. As 

the Assistant Treasury Secretary 

for Financial Institutions, she was 

charged with helping to develop the 

Administration’s positions on banking 

policy issues. She worked closely 

with Treasury’s own banking 

regulatory bureaus, the Office of 

Sheila C. Bair was sworn in as the 

19th Chairman of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC) on 

June 26, 2006. She was appointed 

Chairman for a five-year term, and 

as a member of the FDIC Board of 

Directors through July 2013.

Before her appointment to the FDIC, 

Ms. Bair was the Dean’s Professor 

of Financial Regulatory Policy for the 

Isenberg School of Management at 

the University of MassachusettsAmherst since 2002. Other career 

Sheila C. Bair

FDIC Board of Directors

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

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

A p p e n d i x B - M o r e A b o u t t h e F D I C
117

the Comptroller of the Currency and 

the Office of Thrift Supervision, as 

well as the Federal Reserve Board 

and the FDIC. Ms. Bair’s teaching 

and research at the University of 

Massachusetts also dealt extensively 

with banking and related issues. 

Ms. Bair has served as a member 

of several professional and nonprofit organizations, including the 

Insurance Marketplace Standards 

Association, Women in Housing 

and Finance, Center for Responsible 

Lending, NASD Ahead-of-the-Curve 

Advisory Committee, Massachusetts 

Savings Makes Cents, American Bar 

Association, Exchequer Club, and 

Society of Children’s Book Writers 

and Illustrators.

Five months after becoming 

Chairman, Ms. Bair was named 

to The Wall Street Journal magazine 

Smart Money’s (November 2006) 

“Power 30” list – the magazine’s 

lineup of the 30 most influential 

people in investing. Chairman Bair 

has also received several honors 

for her published work on financial 

issues, including her educational 

writings on money and finance 

for children, and for professional 

achievement. Among the honors 

she has received are: Distinguished 

Achievement Award, Association 

of Education Publishers (2005); 

Personal Service Feature of the Year, 

and Author of the Month Awards, 

Highlights Magazine for Children

(2002, 2003 and 2004); and The 

Treasury Medal (2002). Her first 

book – Rock, Brock and the Savings 

Shock, a publication for children – 

was published in 2006. 

Chairman Bair received a bachelor’s 

degree from Kansas University and 

a J.D. from Kansas University 

School of Law. She is married 

to Scott P. Cooper and has two 

children. 

Martin J. Gruenberg 

Martin J. Gruenberg was sworn in 

as Vice Chairman of the FDIC Board 

of Directors on August 22, 2005. 

Upon the resignation of Chairman 

Donald Powell, he served as Acting 

Chairman from November 15, 2005, to

June 26, 2006. 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-LeachBliley Act, and the Sarbanes-Oxley 

Act of 2002. 

Mr. Gruenberg holds a J.D. from 

Case Western Reserve Law School 

and an A.B. from Princeton University, 

Woodrow Wilson School of Public 

and International Affairs. 

Thomas J. Curry

Thomas J. Curry took office on 

January 12, 2004, as a member of 

the Board of Directors of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation for 

a six-year term. Mr. Curry serves as 

Chairman of the FDIC's Assessment 

Appeals Committee and Case 

Review Committee.

Mr. Curry also serves as the Chairman 

of the NeighborWorks® America 

Board of Directors. NeighborWorks®

America is a national nonprofit 

organization chartered by Congress 

to provide financial support, 

technical assistance, and training 

for community-based neighborhood 

revitalization efforts. 

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.
118

John C. Dugan

John C. Dugan was sworn in as the 

29th Comptroller of the Currency 

on August 4, 2005. In addition to 

serving as a director of the FDIC, 

Comptroller Dugan also serves as 

chairman of the Joint Forum, a group 

of senior financial sector regulators 

from the United States, Canada, 

Europe, Japan, and Australia, 

and as a director of the Federal 

Financial Institutions Examination 

Council and NeighborWorks®

America.

Prior to his appointment as 

Comptroller, Mr. Dugan was a partner

at the law firm of Covington & 

Burling, where he chaired the firm's 

Financial Institutions Group. He 

specialized in banking and financial 

institution regulation. He also served 

as outside counsel to the ABA 

Securities Association.

He served at the Department of 

Treasury from 1989 to 1993 and 

was appointed assistant secretary 

for domestic finance in 1992. In 

1991, he oversaw a comprehensive 

study of the banking industry that 

formed the basis for the financial 

modernization legislation proposed 

by the administration of the first 

President Bush. From 1985 to 1989, 

Mr. Dugan was minority counsel 

and minority general counsel for the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

Among his professional and 

volunteer activities before becoming 

Comptroller, he served as a director 

of Minbanc, a charitable organization

whose mission is to enhance professional and educational opportunities

for minorities in the banking industry.

He was also a member of the 

American Bar Association's committee 

on banking law, the Federal Bar 

Association's section of financial

institutions and the economy, 

and the District of Columbia Bar 

Association's section of corporations,

finance, and securities laws. 

A graduate of the University of 

Michigan in 1977 with an A.B. in 

English literature, Mr. Dugan also 

earned his J.D. from Harvard Law 

School in 1981. 

John M. Reich 

John M. Reich was sworn in 

August 9, 2005, as Director of the 

Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). 

The President nominated Mr. Reich 

to be OTS Director on June 7, 2005, 

and the Senate confirmed his 

nomination on July 29, 2005. In this 

capacity, Mr. Reich also serves as a 

member of the Board of Directors 

of the FDIC. 

Prior to joining OTS, Mr. Reich 

served as Vice Chairman of the 

Board of Directors of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation 

(FDIC) since November 2002. He 

has been a member of the FDIC 

Board since January 2001. He also 

served as Acting Chairman of the 

FDIC from July to August 2001. 

Prior to coming to Washington, DC, 

Mr. Reich spent 23 years as a community banker in Illinois and Florida, 

including ten years as President 

and CEO of the National Bank of 

Sarasota, in Sarasota, Florida. 

Mr. Reich also served 12 years on 

the staff of U.S. Senator Connie 

Mack (R-FL), before joining the 

FDIC. From 1998 through 2000, 

he was Senator Mack’s Chief of 

Staff, directing and overseeing 

all of the Senator’s offices and 

committee activities, including 

those at the Senate Banking 

Committee. 

Mr. Reich’s community service 

includes serving as Chairman of 

the Board of Trustees of a public 

hospital facility in Ft. Myers, FL, 

and Chairman of the Board of 

Directors of the Sarasota Family 

YMCA. He has also served as a 

Board member for a number of 

civic organizations, and was active 

for many years in youth baseball 

programs. 

Mr. Reich holds a B.S. degree from 

Southern Illinois University and an 

M.B.A. from the University of South 

Florida. He is also a graduate of 

Louisiana State University’s School 

of Banking of the South. 
119

FDIC Organization Chart/Officials

as of December 31, 2007

	 Deputy to the Chairman

	 and Chief Financial Officer

Steven O. App

Deputy to the Chairman

Alice C. Goodman

	 General Counsel

Sara A. Kelsey

Deputy to the Chairman

	 and Chief Operating Officer

John F. Bovenzi

	 Division of Finance

Bret D. Edwards

Director

	 	

	 Division of Supervision

	 and Consumer Protection

Sandra L. Thompson

Director

	 	

	 Division of Insurance

	 and Research

Arthur J. Murton

Director	 	

	 Office of

	 Legislative Affairs

Eric J. Spitler

Director	 	

	 Legal

	 Division

Sara A. Kelsey

General Counsel

	 Office of the

	 Ombudsman

Cottrell L. Webster

Ombudsman

	 Office of Diversity and

	 Economic Opportunity

D. Michael Collins

Director

	 Corporate

	 University

Thom H. Terwilliger

Chief Learning Officer

	 Division of Information

	 Technology

Michael E. Bartell

Director

	 Division of

	 Administration

Arleas Upton Kea

Director

	 Division of Resolutions

	 and Receiverships

Mitchell L. Glassman

Director

	 Office of International

	 Affairs

	 Fred S. Carns

Director

	 	

	 Office of Enterprise

	 Risk Management

James H. Angel, Jr.

Director	 	

	 Chief of Staff

Jesse O. Villarreal, Jr.

	 	

	 Office of Public Affairs

Andrew Gray

Director 

	 Chief Information Officer

	 and Chief Privacy Officer

Michael E. Bartell

	 	

	 Office of

	 Inspector General

Jon T. Rymer

Inspector General

	 	

	 Vice Chairman

Martin J. Gruenberg

	 	

	 Board of Directors

Sheila C. Bair

	 Martin J. Gruenberg 

Thomas J. Curry

	 John C. Dugan

	 John M. Reich

	 Office of the Chairman

Sheila C. Bair

Chairman

	 	
120

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

Note:

All staffing totals reflect year-end balances.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Staffing Trends 1998- 2007

7,359 7,266 6,452 6,167 5,430 

Corporate Staffing

FDIC Staffing
121

 Total Washington 

2007		 2006	 2007	 2006	 2007	 2006

Executive Offices●46 39 46 39 0 0

Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection 2,557 2,517 183 195 2,374 2,322

Division of Resolutions and Receiverships▼218 231 56 57 162 174

Legal Division 398 413 252 263 146 150

Division of Finance▼167 161 155 161 12 0

Division of Information Technology 276 274 213 214 63 60

Division of Insurance and Research 177 185 145 152 32 33

Division of Administration 310 311 208 207 102 104

Office of Inspector General 114 124 81 91 33 33

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

Office of the Ombudsman 12 12 12 10 0 2

Office of Enterprise Risk Management 12 11 12 11 0 0

Corporate University 214 170 52 38 162 132

Total	 4,532	 4,476	 1,446	 1,466	 3,086	 3,010

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

On January 26, 2007, the Deposit Compliance Audit Section was transferred from the Division of Resolutions and Receiverships to the Division of Finance. 

●

▼

Number of Employees of the FDIC by Division/Office 2006-2007 (year-end)
122

Sources of Information

Home Page on the Internet

www.fdic.gov

A wide range of banking, consumer 

and financial information is available 

on the FDIC’s Internet home page. 

This includes the FDIC’s Electronic 

Deposit Insurance Estimator (EDIE), 

which estimates an individual’s 

deposit insurance coverage; the 

Institution Directory – financial 

profiles of FDIC-insured institutions; 

Community Reinvestment Act 

evaluations and ratings for institutions 

supervised by the FDIC; Call Reports– 

banks’ reports of condition and 

income; and Money Smart, a

training program to help individuals

outside the financial mainstream 

enhance their money management 

skills and create positive banking 

relationships. Readers also can 

access a variety of consumer 

pamphlets, FDIC press releases, 

speeches and other updates on 

the agency’s activities, as well as 

corporate databases and customized 

reports of FDIC and banking industry 

information. 

FDIC Call Center

Phone: 877-275-3342 

 (877-ASK FDIC)

 703-562-2222 

Hearing

Impaired: 800-925-4618

The FDIC Call Center in Washington, DC, 

is the primary telephone point of 

contact for general questions from 

the banking community, the public and 

FDIC employees. The Call Center 

directly, or in concert with other FDIC 

subject-matter experts, responds to 

questions about deposit insurance and 

other consumer issues and concerns, 

as well as questions about FDIC 

programs and activities. The Call 

Center also makes referrals to other 

federal and state agencies as needed. 

Hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 

8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Information 

is also available in Spanish. Recorded 

information about deposit insurance 

and other topics is available 24 hours 

a day at the same telephone number.

Public Information Center

3501 Fairfax Drive

Room E-1002

Arlington, VA 22226

Phone: 877-275-3342 

 (877-ASK FDIC), or

 703-562-2200 

Fax: 703-562-2296

E-mail: publicinfo@fdic.gov

FDIC publications, press releases, 

speeches and congressional 

testimony, directives to financial 

institutions, policy manuals and other 

documents are available on request 

or by subscription through the 

Public Information Center. These 

documents include the Quarterly 

Banking Profile, FDIC Consumer 

News and a variety of deposit 

insurance and consumer pamphlets.

Office of the Ombudsman

3501 Fairfax Drive

Room E-2022

Arlington, VA 22226

Phone: 877-275-3342 

 (877- ASK FDIC)

Fax: 703-562-6057

E-mail: ombudsman@fdic.gov

The Office of the Ombudsman (OO)

is an independent, neutral and 

confidential resource and liaison 

for the banking industry and the 

general public. The OO responds 

to inquiries about the FDIC in a 

fair, impartial and timely manner. It 

researches questions and complaints 

primarily from bankers. The OO also 

recommends ways to improve FDIC 

operations, regulations and customer 

service.
123

Memphis Area Office

5100 Poplar Avenue

Suite 1900

Memphis, Tennessee 38137

(901) 685-1603

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Mississippi

Tennessee

Regional and Area Offices

 Atlanta Regional Office

10 Tenth Street, NE

Suite 800

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(678) 916-2200

Alabama Virginia

Florida West Virginia

Georgia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Chicago Regional Office

500 West Monroe Street

Suite 3500

Chicago, Illinois 60661

(312) 382-7500

Illinois Wisconsin

Indiana 

Kentucky

Michigan 

Ohio

Dallas Regional Office

1601 Bryan Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214 ) 754-0098

Colorado

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Texas

Kansas City Regional Office

2345 Grand Boulevard

Suite 1200

Kansas City, Missouri 64108

(816) 234-8000

Iowa North Dakota

Kansas South Dakota

Minnesota 

Missouri

Nebraska

New York Regional Office

20 Exchange Place

4th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(917) 320-2500

Delaware Puerto Rico

District of Columbia Virgin Islands

Maryland 

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Boston Area Office

15 Braintree Hill Office Park

Suite 100

Braintree, Massachusetts 02184

(781) 794-5500

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts 

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

San Francisco Regional Office

25 Ecker Street

Suite 2300

San Francisco, California 94105

(415) 546-0160

Alaska Montana

Arizona Nevada

California Oregon

Guam Utah

Hawaii Washington

Idaho Wyoming
124

2008 Management and The following discussion reflects the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) view

Performance Challenges of the management and performance challenges facing the FDIC as it works 

 to accomplish its mission in the coming year. Overall, and as discussed in

 more detail below, these challenges primarily exist due to significant changes 

 impacting the Corporation—changes in the economy, including systemic risk

 caused by subprime mortgage lending; the financial services industry; the 

 characteristics of today’s depository institutions, including the existence 

 of many more large, complex banks; the regulatory arena; lending practices; 

 information technology; and the examination processes, work environment,

 and priorities of the FDIC. Key elements in addressing these challenges 

 are cooperation, coordination, and communication among federal and state 

 banking regulators; the Congress; others in the financial services industry, 

 both domestically and abroad; and the public. Such activities need to be 

 complemented by a vigilant, well trained and prepared FDIC workforce that 

 is fully engaged in insurance and supervisory programs and other supporting 

 processes that identify and address risky products, practices, and activities 

 that can threaten the viability of the insurance fund, harm consumers, and 

 undermine stability and public confidence in the banking system. Likewise, 

 in light of the existence of more large, complex banks, the FDIC must 

 ensure that it has the necessary skills, processes, and systems to carry out 

 its resolution mission in the event that such a bank would fail. 

 In our view, the FDIC is fully committed to addressing these challenges and

 has many actions underway in that regard. The OIG is prepared to continue 

 to work with our corporate colleagues throughout the coming year to assist 

 them in successfully doing so. 

 

Identifying and Mitigating Risks As of the end of the third quarter of 2007, the Deposit Insurance Fund 

to the Deposit Inurance Fund balance was $51.8 billion. The FDIC insured $4.241 trillion in deposits in 8,571 

 institutions. Of these FDIC-insured institutions, as of September 30, 2007, 

 the 10 largest ones controlled almost 46 percent of the total assets of 

 all insured financial institutions. The FDIC is the primary federal regulator 

 for none of these institutions but is responsible for insuring their deposits 

 and for resolution in the unlikely event of failure of one or more of these 

 institutions. The Corporation is also working to maintain strong regulatory 

 capital standards under the Basel accord and has been implementing 

 legislated reforms to deposit insurance. The Corporation also continues to 

 address matters related to industrial loan companies and to address potential 

 risks that a volatile economy can pose to the fund. Finally, the Corporation 

 has taken on a leadership role as it works with other governments 

 implementing or strengthening deposit insurance and bank supervision 

 around the world. Given these circumstances, the Corporation faces a

 number of challenges: 

 Assessing and Managing Risks in Large Banks 

 The Corporation must ensure it has ready access to the information it needs 

 to effectively identify and assess risks that large institutions, including those 

 it does not supervise, pose to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). Effective 

 communication and coordination with the other primary federal banking 

 regulators is central to the Corporation’s ability to meet this challenge. 

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

 FDIC must have or develop the capability to assess and fully understand 

 the risks associated with these institutions, which are different from those 

 found in the smaller banks with which the FDIC has historical experience. 

Appendix C – 

Office of Inspector General’s Assessment of the Management and Performance Challenges 

Facing the FDIC
125

 To strengthen its oversight of large institutions, the Corporation has 

 implemented some key programs: the Large Insured Depository Institutions 

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

 FDIC also participates with the other federal regulators in the Shared 

 National Credit program. The FDIC is also emphasizing liquidity management 

 due to uncertainties in the financial markets area from the subprime 

 mortgage turmoil.

 Maintaining Strong Regulatory Capital Standards

 The FDIC and other federal banking agencies agreed to finalize rules 

 implementing Basel II advanced capital requirements for large, complex 

 banks. The agreement contains important safeguards against unrestrained

 reductions in risk-based capital requirements for these large institutions. It 

 also provides for the development in the U.S. of the Basel II standardized 

 approach as an option for other banks. The FDIC must continue its work in 

 this realm to ensure strong regulatory capital standards.

 Implementing New Deposit Insurance Regulations 

 On February 6, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Federal Deposit 

 Insurance (FDI) Reform Act of 2005. The FDI Reform Conforming 

 Amendments Act of 2005, enacted on February 15, 2006, contains 

 necessary technical and conforming changes to implement deposit 

 insurance reform as well as a number of study and survey requirements. 

 In 2006, the Board adopted a number of final rules implementing specific 

 reforms concerning the one-time assessment credit, risk-based assessments,

 and the designated reserve ratio, and put in place a temporary rule for 

 dividends. In 2007, the Corporation made significant changes to its IT 

 systems and business processes in order to prepare invoices and collect 

 assessments in accordance with the new risk-based assessment and 

 credit rules. In September 2007, the Board adopted an advance notice 

 of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on alternative approaches to 

 allocate dividends. In 2008, the FDIC expects to publish proposed and 

 final dividend rules to replace the temporary rule, which will sunset at the 

 end of this year. Also in 2008, the Corporation will continue to modify, as 

 necessary, the processes and systems implementing the new rules and 

 to begin evaluating the effectiveness of the new assessment methods 

 and processes. Finally, for both 2007 and 2008, the Board adopted a 

 designated (target) reserve ratio of 1.25 percent, which has resulted in 

 the need to set risk-based assessment rates above the base rate schedule

 in order to gradually raise the reserve ratio to the target.

 Granting Insurance to and Supervising Industrial Loan Companies

In January 2007, the FDIC Board of Directors voted to continue for one year 

 a moratorium on applications for deposit insurance and change in control 

 notices for industrial loan companies (ILCs) that will be owned by commercial 

 companies. The moratorium does not apply to ILCs owned by financial 

 companies. The Board also issued a proposed rule to strengthen the framework 

 for consideration of applications or notices for industrial banks owned by

 financial companies not subject to federal consolidated bank supervision. 

 According to FDIC Chairman Bair, the growth in commercial ownership of 

 ILCs raises public policy concerns. The moratorium would provide Congress 

 an opportunity to address the issue legislatively while the FDIC considers 

 how best to respond to any safety and soundness issues surrounding

 commercial ownership under existing law. This area will continue to require 

 FDIC attention.
126

 Serving as a Model for Deposit Insurers 

 and Bank Supervisors Around the World

 Deposit insurance helps maintain financial stability—on a national or international 

 scale—in times of economic stress. Increasingly, the Corporation is playing a 

 leadership role in the global arena as foreign governments look to the FDIC as a 

 model for establishing or strengthening their systems of deposit insurance 

 and bank supervision. For example, in August 2007, the FDIC and the 

 People’s Republic of China signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

 forging an international working relationship to develop and expand methods 

 of interaction on economic and financial issues. The MOU is a positive step 

 in establishing a deposit insurance system in China. In November 2007, an 

 MOU was signed with the Korean Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC), 

 which provides for a KDIC employee to be temporarily assigned to the 

 FDIC. The FDIC is joining others in the International Association of Deposit 

 Insurers (IADI) to help strengthen the role of deposit insurance around the 

 world. In 2007, FDIC Vice Chairman Gruenberg was elected to serve as 

 Chairman of the Executive Council and President of the IADI. The FDIC 

 was also elected as the North American Region Board member for the 

 Association of Supervisors of Banks in the Americas (ASBA), providing 

 leadership to several ASBA working groups and instruction for ASBA operational

 risk management courses. The FDIC may face new challenges as it expands 

 its role in these types of international activities.

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

Soundness Through Effective and public confidence in the nation’s financial system. As of the third quarter

Examinations, Enforcement, and 2007, the FDIC was the primary federal regulator for more than 5,200 

Follow-Up institutions. The FDIC performs risk management, information technology, 

 trust, and other types of examinations of FDIC-supervised insured depository

 institutions. (See also a discussion of compliance examinations under Protecting 

 and Educating Consumers and Ensuring Compliance Through Effective 

 Examinations, Enforcement, and Follow-up.) As part of risk management 

 examinations, the FDIC also ensures that institutions comply with the 

 regulatory requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. The Corporation’s system 

 of supervisory controls must identify and effectively address financial institution 

 activities that are unsafe, unsound, illegal, or improper. Specific challenges 

 related to this core FDIC function include:

 Maintaining an Effective Examination and Supervision Program

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

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

 potential risk. At the end of the year, the FDIC Chairman voiced her support and 

 trust in examiner judgment; announced elimination of the Maximum Efficiency, 

 Risk-Focused, Institution Targeted (MERIT) examination program; and recommended 

 other changes to the examination program to allow examiners more flexibility 

 in planning and conducting examinations. Further details on the changes to 

 this core FDIC function will be forthcoming and will likely have a significant 

 impact on the FDIC’s examination workforce, which is expected to total 1,808 

 by the end of 2008 (1,423 risk management examiners; 385 compliance 

 examiners). Examiners today work in an environment where risk may be 

 increasingly difficult to ascertain and quantify, for example as a result of the 

 lack of financial statement transparency that derives from off-bank balance 

 sheet liabilities at a time when, for instance, the FDIC increasingly employs 

 off-site monitoring. The FDIC must also ensure that financial institutions 
127

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

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

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

 processes must be effective to ensure institutions are promptly complying 

 with supervisory actions resulting from the FDIC’s examination process. The 

 FDIC Board approved an increase in authorized staffing from 4,716 in 2007 

 to 4,810 for 2008, primarily for additional bank examiners, including the 

 rehiring of retired examiners to return to the FDIC temporarily in the 

 interest of ensuring an examination workforce with the breadth of experience 

 needed to detect risk management concerns during the examination 

 process.

 Identifying and Addressing Risks Related to Consumer Debt 

 The past several years have been marked by increased participation in the 

 mortgage market by providers other than insured banks and thrift institutions. 

 About half of subprime mortgage originations in 2005 and 2006 were carried out 

 by companies that were not subject to examination by a federal supervisor. 

 The use of securitization as a funding method also has changed the financial 

 system by moving large volumes of assets off the balance sheets of federally 

 insured financial institutions. As industry practices changed, a number of 

 risk management fundamentals were seemingly ignored or weakened. Practices 

 such as limited or no income verification, faulty appraisals, risk layering through 

 combinations of loan products, and no money down or interest-only loan 

 products all serve to heighten risk when combined with the ability to securitize 

 and sell the loans. Lax lending standards and inadequate consumer protections 

 resulted in widespread failure to underwrite loans to borrowers based on the 

 borrowers’ ability to pay at the fully indexed rate. As the Chairman pointed 

 out in December 2007, there are an estimated 1.7 million owner-occupied 

 subprime hybrid adjustable rate mortgages, with outstanding balances of 

 $367 billion, that are scheduled to have their interest rates reset in 2008 and

 2009. The impact of poor underwriting practices has spread throughout the 

 economy, harming consumers and investors while creating volatility in the 

 financial markets. The FDIC is working with other regulators in urging banks 

 and mortgage servicers to restructure loans, as feasible, to avoid foreclosures 

 and keep consumers in their homes. The full ramifications of the troubled 

 subprime mortgage market have yet to be seen, and the months ahead 

 will be challenging ones. Similar concerns related to other consumer debt 

 such as credit card lending may also require focused FDIC attention in 

 the future.

Contributing to Public Confidence Guarding Against Financial Crimes in Insured Institutions 

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

 by criminal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing. Such 

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

 The Corporation’s challenge is to develop and implement programs and activities 

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

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

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

 created opportunities for increased real-estate frauds, including certain property 

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

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

 make good use of reports, information, and other resources available to them 

 to help detect such fraud. 
128

 The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools 

 Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), 

 enacted on October 26, 2001, was passed by the United States Congress 

 in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks and made a number of 

 amendments to the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy 

 Act (BSA). Congress found that money laundering “provides the financial 

 fuel that permits transnational criminal enterprises to conduct and expand 

 their operations to the detriment of the safety and security of American 

 citizens” and that it is critical to the financing of global terrorism and terrorist 

 attacks. Accordingly, FDIC examiners play an important role in ensuring that 

 the institutions for which they serve as primary federal regulator comply 

 with the Act.

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

 safety and soundness relates to compliance with the BSA, which requires 

 financial institutions to keep records and file reports on certain financial 

 transactions. FDIC-supervised institutions must establish and maintain 

 procedures to comply with BSA requirements. An institution’s level of risk 

 for potential terrorist financing and money laundering determines the 

 necessary scope of the BSA examination. In a related vein, the U.S. 

 Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 

 promulgates, develops, and administers economic and trade sanctions 

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

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

 OFAC regulations prohibit financial institutions from engaging in transactions 

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

 countries against which federal law imposes economic sanctions. A challenge 

 for the FDIC is to provide effective oversight of FDIC-supervised institutions’ 

 compliance with BSA and OFAC regulations.

 In its supervisory capacity, the FDIC also analyzes data security threats, 

 occurrences of bank security breaches, and incidents of electronic crime 

 that involve financial institutions. Despite generally strong controls and 

 practices by financial institutions, new methods for stealing personal data 

 and committing fraud with that data continue to emerge. The FDIC needs 

 to continue its work to ensure the security of customer data against such 

 criminal activity to help maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the 

 banking system.

Protecting and Educating The FDIC protects consumers by overseeing a variety of statutory and 

Consumers and Ensuring regulatory requirements aimed at safeguarding consumer privacy and 

Compliance Through Effective preventing unfair or deceptive practices involving FDIC-supervised 

Examinations, Enforcement, institutions. Through community outreach efforts and technical assistance,

and Follow-up the FDIC educates consumers and encourages lenders to work with 

 members of their local communities in meeting the communities’ credit 

 needs and to serve the unbanked and underbanked members of their 

 communities. Specific challenges include:

 Safeguarding the Privacy of Consumer Information 

 The FDIC conducts periodic examinations to verify that institutions comply

 with laws designed to protect personal information. The FDIC evaluates 

 the adequacy of financial institutions’ programs for securing customer 

 data and may pursue informal or formal supervisory action if it finds a 

 deficiency. As an added challenge, banks are increasingly using third-party 
129

 servicers to provide support for core information and transaction processing 

 functions, and these servicers may operate domestically or abroad. The 

 obligations of a financial institution to protect the privacy and security of 

 customer information under U.S. laws and regulations remain in full effect. 

 Promoting Fairness and Inclusion in the Delivery of Information,

 Products, and Services to Consumers and Communities 

 FDIC Chairman Bair has stressed the importance of economic inclusion and 

 has voiced concern that market mechanisms may not work as well as they 

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

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

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

 products and their prices or to understand disclosures that describe a product

 and its true costs. As the Chairman has pointed out, continuing dialogue 

 among consumer advocates, regulators, and the banking industry is key to 

 the challenge of closing the gap between what the unbanked and under-

 banked pay for credit and what those in the mainstream pay. An additional 

 challenge is to balance the need for regulation with undue interference in 

 legitimate business activities. 

 Ensuring Compliance with Laws and Regulations 

 and Follow-up on Violations 

 The FDIC’s compliance program, including examinations, visitations, and 

 follow-up supervisory attention on violations and other program deficiencies, 

 is critical to ensuring that consumers and businesses obtain the benefits 

 and protections afforded them by law. The compliance examination is the 

 primary means by which the FDIC determines the extent to which a financial 

 institution complies with more than 20 consumer protection laws and related 

 regulations. The FDIC also conducts Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) 

 examinations in accordance with the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 

 law intended to encourage insured banks and thrifts to help meet the credit 

 needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business, including 

 low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound 

 operations. 

 Additionally, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) 

 is applicable to all federally-related mortgage loans, except for certain 

 types of loans that are exempted. Although overall authority for RESPA 

 compliance and enforcement remains with the Department of Housing and 

 Urban Development, the FDIC and other federal banking agencies examine 

 financial institutions for compliance. There is significant risk in this area due 

 to downturns in the residential real estate market, which could cause mortgage 

 lenders to be more aggressive in their lending practices; anticipation of large 

 restructuring and refinancing of nontraditional real estate loans in the near 

 future; and the need to determine whether financial institutions are providing

 adequate disclosure to ensure consumers understand the types of real 

 estate loans they are obtaining. 

 As with risk management examinations discussed earlier, the changes that 

 the Chairman announced at the end of 2007 will have a definite impact on 

 the FDIC’s compliance examination activities as well and will pose new 

 challenges. Among those changes, the Chairman indicated that rules associated

 with report of examination content would be eliminated and workpaper 

 requirements would be altered, with the report of examination becoming 

 the principal document of record. 
130

 Visitations are an important means of reviewing the compliance posture of 

 newly chartered institutions coming under FDIC supervision or for following 

 up on an institution’s progress on corrective actions. Investigations are used 

 to follow up on a particular consumer’s inquiries or complaints. In instances 

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

 appropriate corrective actions are taken.

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

Insured Institution Failures associations and needs to be ready for the resolution of any institution 

 that fails, regardless of size. The challenge is especially great if a large 

 and complex bank fails. By carefully managing the Deposit Insurance 

 Fund, the FDIC can protect insured depositors by using fund assets to 

 pay insured deposits at the time of institution failure. After a relatively

 long period during which no banks failed, the FDIC was appointed receiver 

 of Metropolitan Savings Bank, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on February 2, 2007.

 Metropolitan was the first FDIC-insured institution to fail since June 25, 2004. 

 Metropolitan’s failure was followed by two additional closings: NetBank, FSB, 

 Alpharetta, Georgia, a $2.2 billion Internet bank on September 28, 2007, and

 Miami Valley Bank, a $92.6 million institution in Lakeview, Ohio, which 

 failed on October 4, 2007. 

 In total, the FDIC insures more than 8,560 commercial banks and savings 

 institutions, which together hold more than $12 trillion in assets. While 

 over 90 percent of U.S. banks and thrifts are small community-based 

 institutions, the 25 largest banking organizations hold about 71 percent of 

 the industry’s assets. Thus, the FDIC could face the challenge of handling 

 a failing institution with a significantly larger number of insured deposits 

 than it has had to in the past. In recent history, the largest number of 

 deposit accounts in a failed institution for which the FDIC had to make 

 an insurance determination was about 175,000 for NetBank, referenced 

 above. Today, however, some of the larger banks have more than 50 million 

 deposit accounts.

 The Corporation’s ability to rapidly and accurately determine the insured 

 status of deposit accounts is essential to resolving bank failures in the 

 most cost-effective and least disruptive manner and preserving the 

 public’s confidence in the FDIC. To that end, the Corporation needs to 

 continue to explore new strategies and ensure corporate readiness to 

 handle failing and failed institutions, including large or multiple bank 

 failures. It needs to do so in light of past FDIC downsizing activities––

 which could prove especially burdensome for current receivership and 

 resolutions staff; corresponding loss of institutional knowledge and 

 expertise; and the relative lack of recent experience with failed banks. 

 The FDIC is focusing on developing a strategy for closing a very large, 

 non-systemic bank. In that connection, the Corporation has conducted a 

 Strategic Readiness Simulation and plans others to simulate and stress 

 the FDIC’s decision-making processes, strategies, and planning for a large 

 bank failure. The FDIC also has an ongoing initiative to modernize the way 

 it determines the insurance status of depositors in the event of failure by 

 streamlining its business processes and modernizing the internal systems 

 used to facilitate a deposit insurance determination through improved use 

 of current technology. This includes developing and implementing a new 

 insurance determination system by 2009 called the Claims Administration 
131

 System (CAS), which will provide an integrated solution that will meet 

 the current and future deposit insurance determination needs of the FDIC. 

 These are all positive steps, yet the Corporation faces significant challenges 

 in ensuring that it has the requisite resources and expertise to efficiently and 

 effectively resolve failed banks, completing contingency resolution plans, 

 and implementing the CAS system. 

Promoting Sound Governance The FDIC must practice sound governance and risk mitigation practices 

and Managing and Protecting Human, and effectively manage a number of critical strategic resources in order to 

Financial, Information Technology, carry out its mission successfully, particularly its human, financial, information

Physical, and Procurement Resources technology (IT), physical, and procurement resources. A number of key 

 management activities pose challenges to corporate leadership and managers, 

 as discussed below: 

 Corporate Governance and Enterprise Risk Management 

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

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

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

 have State bank supervisory experience. The Board includes the Comptroller 

 of the Currency and the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision. Given the

 relatively frequent changes in the Board make-up, it is essential that strong 

 and sustainable governance and communication processes are in place 

 throughout the FDIC and that Board members possess and share the 

 information needed at all times to understand existing and emerging risks 

 and make sound policy and management decisions. 

 Enterprise risk management (ERM) is a key component of governance. The 

 FDIC’s numerous 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. To that end, the 

 FDIC plans to develop a more comprehensive blueprint to enhance 

 coordination among the various committees and groups that contribute 

 to ERM.

 Human Capital Management

 The FDIC has undergone significant restructuring and downsizing in response 

 to changes in the industry, technological advances, and business process 

 improvements and, as with many government agencies, the FDIC anticipates 

 a high level of retirement in the next 5 years. The Corporation needs to 

 continue to focus on ensuring that employees have the necessary skill sets 

 to address the issues confronting the FDIC now and into the future—

 oftentimes issues that are extremely complex and technically challenging.

 Further, with a large number of employees eligible to retire, succession 

 planning efforts are key to ensuring that institutional knowledge is 

 maintained and a new group of FDIC employees is well prepared to 

 carry out the corporate mission going forward.

 In the interest of making the FDIC an employer of choice, increasing FDIC 

 employee engagement and empowerment, enhancing trust between FDIC 

 managers and employees, and refining the Corporation’s pay-for-performance 

 system, the Chairman of the FDIC spearheaded a comprehensive employee 

 survey that was carried out by an independent consulting group. The 

 Chairman is committed to effecting necessary changes based on the results 
132

 of the survey, as evidenced by her announcement regarding improvements 

 to the pay-for-performance program for pay determinations that were due 

 in early 2008. In the upcoming months, many in the Corporation will be 

 challenged as they take steps to address the concerns and issues identified

 in the employee engagement survey. 

 Finally, in an age of identity theft risks, another human capital management 

 challenge is to maintain effective controls to protect personal employee-related

 information that the Corporation possesses. The appointment of a chief 

 privacy officer and implementation of a privacy program have been positive 

 steps in addressing that challenge. Further, the FDIC has established a 

 process for conducting privacy impact assessments of its information 

 systems containing personally identifiable information (PII) that is consistent 

 with relevant privacy-related policy, guidance, and standards. The FDIC is 

 making progress towards completing initiatives to safeguard its PII and 

 related systems consistent with privacy-related statutes, policies, and 

 guidelines. The FDIC recognizes that implementing effective measures 

 to protect PII will require a sustained effort. 

 Financial Management

 As referenced above, the Deposit Insurance Fund totals $51.8 billion. Given 

 such magnitude, FDIC investment policies must require that these funds 

 be invested in accordance with applicable requirements and sound investment 

 strategies. The Board approved a $1.14 billion 2008 Corporate Operating 

 Budget, approximately 3.1 percent higher than for 2007. The FDIC’s 

 operating expenses are largely paid from the insurance fund, and consistent 

 with sound corporate governance principles, the Corporation must 

 continuously seek to be efficient and cost-conscious. The FDIC uses 

 its New Financial Environment to better manage and track costs across 

 the Corporation.

 With respect to capital investments, effective planning and management 

 of information technology (IT) and non-IT capital investments are mandated 

 by Congress and by the Office of Management and Budget for most federal

 agencies. Although many of these laws and executive orders are not legally 

 binding on the FDIC, the Corporation recognizes that they constitute sound 

 business practices and has decided to voluntarily adopt them in whole or 

 in part. The FDIC is taking steps to help ensure that approved investment 

 projects are executed on time and within budget, and that they realize 

 anticipated benefits.

 Information Technology Management

 To address IT management challenges, the FDIC must focus on the effectiveness 

 of the Chief Information Officer Council and Project Management Office, 

 both of which play an important role in reviewing the portfolio of approved IT 

 projects and other initiatives. FDIC processes in this area are at varying degrees 

 of maturity, and the Corporation has activities underway and planned to 

 further strengthen its processes to optimize IT capital investments. It must 

 continue to enhance its Enterprise Architecture (EA) program by identifying 

 duplicative resources/investments and opportunities for internal and external 

 collaboration to promote operational improvements and cost-effective 

 solutions to business requirements. Further, the FDIC should continue to 

 focus attention on improving cost estimation; building project management 

 skills; implementing project management process improvements related 

 to project planning, coordination, and reporting; and establishing procedures 
133

 to ensure that post-project recommendations, best practices, and lessons 

 learned are integrated into the governance process. Making sound IT 

 business decisions while containing IT costs to the fullest extent possible 

 will continue to challenge corporate officials. 

 The establishment of an integrated and streamlined e-government infrastructure 

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

 Corporation has initiated a number of major projects designed to improve 

 internal operations, communications, and service to members of the public, 

 business, and other government entities. The challenge is to ensure that 

 such projects are consistent with e-government principles and implementing 

 guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.

 IT and Physical Security

 The FDIC relies on automated information systems to collect, process, and 

 store vast amounts of banking and other sensitive information. Much of this 

 information is used by financial regulators, academia, and the public to monitor 

 bank performance, develop regulatory policy, and to research and analyze 

 important banking issues. Ensuring the integrity, availability, and appropriate 

 confidentiality of this information in an environment of increasingly sophisticated 

 security threats and global connectivity requires a strong records management 

 program and a correspondingly effective enterprise-wide information security 

 program. The Corporation has made significant progress in improving its 

 information security and privacy program and practices. However, as shown 

 in our annual evaluation under the Federal Information Security Management 

 Act, continued management attention is needed in certain key security 

 control areas. These include: access control; identification and authentication; 

 certification, accreditation, and security assessments; risk assessment; 

 personnel security; and audit and accountability. 

 The FDIC must be sure that its emergency response plans provide for the 

 safety and physical security of its personnel and ensure that its business 

 continuity planning and disaster recovery capability keep critical business 

 functions operational during any emergency. Threats to public health such 

 as a pandemic influenza could also put the Corporation’s internal emergency 

 preparedness to the test. In this regard, it is important that the Corporation 

 follow through on its planned completion of a Pandemic Influenza Preparedness 

 Plan by April 2008. 

 Procurement Management

 According to the Corporation’s New Financial Environment data, the FDIC 

 had $1.52 billion in outstanding contracts as of December 31, 2007, and 

 awarded approximately $379 million in contracts during 2007. Over the past 

 few years, the FDIC has increased its reliance on outsourcing for services 

 such as IT infrastructure support, IT application system development, and 

 facilities maintenance. Additionally, the Corporation negotiated certain “non-

 federal” employee benefits with the National Treasury Employees Union as 

 part of the 2006-2009 Compensation Agreement. The FDIC has established 

 agreements with benefits service providers to support its employee benefits 

 program. The Corporation has also downsized and reduced its contracting 

 staff over the same time frame, which has posed challenges to contract 

 administration activities. Given this environment, effective and efficient 

 processes and related controls for identifying needed goods and services, 

 acquiring them, and monitoring contractors after the contract award must 

 be in place and operate well. Such attention will serve the Corporation well 
134

 as it plans for its 2009 reprocurement of IT infrastructure support services, 

 one of its largest procurements. Also, a number of new contracting vehicles 

 and approaches have been implemented requiring different oversight mechanisms

 and strategies and increasing the need for the FDIC to complete revisions to 

 its acquisition policies that reflect the current procurement environment. 
135
136

Notes
137

Notes
138

Cover Photograph and Book Design: FDIC/DOA/CSB/Graphic Design Unit
139

 Federal

 Deposit

 Insurance

 Corporation

This Annual Report was produced 

by talented and dedicated staff. 

To these individuals, we would 

like to offer our sincere thanks 

and appreciation. Special recognition 

is given to the following individuals 

for their contributions:

Sam Collicchio

Pearline Crosland

Jannie F. Eaddy

Barbara Glasby

Patricia Hughes

Mia Jordan

Robert Nolan

Michelle Watson

200

7

200

7