FDIC Quarterly

Quarterly Banking Profile:

First Quarter 2009

The FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan 

Pilot Program: A Case Study 

after One Year

Findings from the FDIC Survey 

of Bank Efforts to Serve the 

Unbanked and Underbanked

2009, Volume 3, Number 2
Chairman Sheila C. Bair

Director, Division of Insurance Arthur J. Murton

 and Research

Executive Editor Maureen E. Sweeney

Managing Editors Richard A. Brown

Diane L. Ellis

Paul H. Kupiec

Christopher J. Newbury

Editor Kathy Zeidler

Publication Managers Peggi Gill

Lynne Montgomery

Media Inquiries (202) 898-6993

The FDIC Quarterly is published by the Division of Insurance and Research of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation and contains a comprehensive summary of the most current financial results for 

the banking industry. Feature articles appearing in the FDIC Quarterly range from timely analysis of 

economic and banking trends at the national and regional level that may affect the risk exposure of 

FDIC-insured institutions to research on issues affecting the banking system and the development of 

regulatory policy.

Single copy subscriptions of the FDIC Quarterly can be obtained through the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226. E-mail requests should be 

sent to publicinfo@fdic.gov. Change of address information also should be submitted to the Public 

Information Center. 

The FDIC Quarterly is available on-line by visiting the FDIC Web site at www.fdic.gov. To receive 

e-mail notification of the electronic release of the FDIC Quarterly and the individual feature articles, 

subscribe at www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html. 
2009, Volume 3, Number 2

FDIC Quarterly

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. Some of the information used in the preparation of this publication was obtained from publicly available sources 

that are considered reliable. However, the use of this information does not constitute an endorsement of its accuracy by the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Articles may be reprinted or abstracted if the publication and author(s) are credited. 

Please provide the FDIC’s Division of Insurance and Research with a copy of any publications containing reprinted material.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Celebrates Its 

75th Year See page ii.

Quarterly Banking Profile: First Quarter 2009

FDIC-insured institutions reported net income of $7.6 billion in the first quarter of 2009, a decline of 

$11.7 billion (60.8 percent) from the $19.3 billion that the industry earned in the first quarter of 2008. Higher 

loan-loss provisions, increased goodwill write-downs, and reduced income from securitization activities all 

contributed to the year-over-year earnings decline. Three out of five insured institutions reported lower net 

income in the first quarter and one in five was unprofitable. See page 1.

Insurance Fund Indicators

Estimated insured deposits (based on the basic FDIC insurance limit of $100,000) increased by 1.7 percent 

in the first quarter of 2009. The Deposit Insurance Fund reserve ratio fell to 0.27 percent, and 21 FDICinsured institutions failed during the quarter. See page 14.

Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program

The FDIC Board approved the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) in response to major 

disruptions in credit markets. The TLGP improves access to liquidity for participating institutions by fully 

guaranteeing non-interest-bearing transaction deposit accounts and by guaranteeing eligible senior unsecured 

debt. As of March 31, 2009, more than 86 percent of FDIC-insured institutions have opted in to the Transaction Account Guarantee Program, and 8,102 eligible entities have elected the option to participate in 

the Debt Guarantee Program. Approximately $700 billion in non-interest-bearing transaction accounts was 

guaranteed as of March 31, 2009, and $336 billion in guaranteed senior unsecured debt, issued by 97 entities, 

was outstanding at the end of the first quarter. See page 19.

Feature Articles:

The FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program: A Case Study 

after One Year

The FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program is a two-year case study designed to identify best practices in 

affordable small-dollar loan programs that can be replicated by other financial institutions. This article summarizes results from the first four quarters of the pilot, highlights factors that have contributed to the success of 

participating banks’ programs, and presents the most common small-dollar loan business models. See page 29.

Findings from the FDIC Survey of Bank Efforts to Serve the 

Unbanked and Underbanked

This article summarizes key findings of the FDIC Survey of Bank Efforts to Serve the Unbanked and Underbanked.

It is intended to inform bankers, policymakers, and researchers of the results of the survey and to outline steps 

for improving access to the mainstream financial system. See page 39.
FDIC Quarterly ii 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Celebrates Its 75th Year 

Chairman Bair and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

(FDIC) officially launched the agency’s 75th anniversary on June 

16, 2008. The Corporation is celebrating this milestone with a 

campaign to promote awareness of deposit insurance and coverage 

limits, as well as to reinforce its ongoing commitment to consumers 

through an initiative to enhance financial literacy and improve 

consumer savings. Please visit our 75th anniversary web site for 

more information at www.fdic.gov/anniversary. 

The FDIC is an independent government agency that has been protecting Americans’ 

savings for 75 years. Created in 1933, the FDIC promotes public trust and confidence in 

the U.S. banking system by insuring deposits.

The FDIC insures more than $4.8 trillion of deposits in over 8,200 U.S. banks and thrifts—

deposits in virtually every bank and thrift in the country. Throughout our 75-year history, 

no one has ever lost a penny of insured deposits as a result of a bank failure.

In addition to immediately responding to insured depositors when a bank fails, the FDIC 

monitors and addresses risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund, and directly supervises and 

examines approximately 5,100 institutions that are not members of the Federal Reserve 

System. The FDIC—with a staff of more than 5,300 employees nationwide—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. Sheila C. Bair 

heads this board as the 19th Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
FDIC Quarterly 1 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile First Quarter 2009

Highest Earnings in Four Quarters Are 61 Percent 

Lower than a Year Ago

Sharply higher trading revenues at large banks helped 

FDIC-insured institutions post an aggregate net profit of 

$7.6 billion in the first quarter of 2009. Realized gains 

on securities and other assets at a few large institutions 

also contributed to the quarter’s profits. First quarter 

earnings were $11.7 billion (60.8 percent) lower than 

in the first quarter of 2008 but represented a significant 

recovery from the $36.9 billion net loss the industry 

reported in the fourth quarter of 2008.1 Provisions for 

loan and lease losses were lower than in the fourth 

quarter of 2008 but continued to rise on a year-overyear basis. The increase in loss provisions, higher 

1

 Amended financial reports received since the publication of the 

fourth quarter 2008 Quarterly Banking Profile caused the industry’s 

fourth-quarter net loss to widen from $32.1 billion to $36.9 billion. 

The amendments included higher expenses for goodwill impairment 

and increased loan-loss provisions.

charges for goodwill impairment, and reduced income 

from securitization activity were the primary causes of 

the year-over-year decline in industry net income. 

Evidence of earnings weakness was widespread in the 

first quarter; more than one out of every five institutions (21.6 percent) reported a net loss, and almost 

three out of every five (59.3 percent) reported lower net 

income than in the first quarter of 2008.

Loss Provisions Continue to Weigh Heavily 

on Earnings

Insured institutions set aside $60.9 billion in loan loss 

provisions in the first quarter, an increase of $23.7 

billion (63.6 percent) from the first quarter of 2008. 

Almost two out of every three insured institutions 

(65.4 percent) increased their loss provisions. Goodwill 

impairment charges and other intangible asset expenses 

rose to $7.2 billion from $2.8 billion a year earlier. 

Against these negative factors, total noninterest income 

■ Net Income of $7.6 Billion Is Less than Half Year-Earlier Level

■ Noninterest Income Registers Strong Rebound at Large Banks

■ Aggressive Reserve Building Trails Growth in Troubled Loans

■ Industry Assets Contract by $302 Billion

■ Total Equity Capital Increases by $82.1 Billion

INSURED INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE

Industry Income Remains Well Below Normal

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 

Securities and Other Gains/Losses, Net

Net Operating Income

$ Billions

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

31.8 31.2 32.5 31.0 34.0 33.2 34.7 32.6

36.9 38.0 38.1 35.3 35.6 36.8

28.7

0.6

19.3

4.8 0.9

-36.9

7.6

2009

Chart 1 Chart 2

4.4

7.8

1.9

23.7

6.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Increase in

Net Interest

Income

Increase in

Noninterest

Income

Increase in

Realized Gains

on Securities

Increase in

Loan Loss

Provision

Increase in

Noninterest

Expense

1st Quarter 2009 vs. 1st Quarter 2008

($ Billions) 

Positive Factors

Negative

Factors 

Loss Provisions Continue to Be the Most Signicant

Factor Affecting Industry Earnings 

With great sadness we note the passing of L. William Seidman, Chairman of the FDIC from 1985 to 1991, and founder of the 

Quarterly Banking Profile. His wisdom and leadership through difficult times continue to inspire, as does his commitment to 

openness, transparency, and an informed public.
FDIC Quarterly 2 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Chart 4

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1234123412341

Quarterly Change in Noncurrent Loans

Quarterly Net Charge-offs

Asset Quality Is Still Deteriorating $ Billions

2006 2007 2008 2009

4.2 6.6 10.6 13.3 12.0 15.3

26.2

44.0 45.8

55.5

49.4

83.2

97.1

contributed $68.3 billion to pretax earnings, a 

$7.8-billion (12.8 percent) improvement over the first 

quarter of 2008. Net interest income was $4.4 billion 

(4.7 percent) higher, and realized gains on securities 

and other assets were up by $1.9 billion (152.6 

percent). The rebound in noninterest income stemmed 

primarily from higher trading revenue at a few large 

banks, but gains on loan sales and increased servicing 

fees also provided a boost to noninterest revenues. 

Trading revenues were $7.6 billion higher than a year 

earlier, servicing fees were up by $2.4 billion, and realized gains on securities and other assets were $1.9 

billion higher. Nevertheless, these positive developments were outweighed by the higher expenses for bad 

loans and goodwill impairment. The average return on 

assets (ROA) was 0.22 percent, less than half the 0.58 

percent registered in the first quarter of 2008 and less 

than one-fifth the 1.20 percent ROA the industry 

enjoyed in the first quarter of 2007.

Lower Funding Costs Lift Large Bank Margins

For the sixth consecutive quarter, falling interest rates 

caused declines in both average funding costs and average asset yields. The industry’s average funding cost fell 

by more than its average asset yield in the quarter, and 

the quarterly net interest margin (NIM) improved from 

fourth quarter 2008 and first quarter 2008 levels. The 

average NIM in the first quarter was 3.39 percent, 

compared to 3.34 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 

and 3.33 percent in the first quarter of 2008. This is the 

highest level for the industry NIM since the second 

quarter of 2006. However, most of the improvement 

was concentrated among larger institutions; more than 

half of all institutions (55.4 percent) reported lower 

NIMs compared to a year earlier, and almost two-thirds 

(66.0 percent) had lower NIMs than in the fourth quarter of 2008. The average NIM at institutions with less 

than $1 billion in assets fell from 3.66 percent in the 

fourth quarter to 3.56 percent, a 21-year low.

Charge-Offs Continue to Rise in All Major 

Loan Categories

First-quarter net charge-offs of $37.8 billion were 

slightly lower than the $38.5 billion the industry 

charged-off in the fourth quarter of 2008, but they were 

almost twice as high as the $19.6 billion total in the 

first quarter of 2008. The year-over-year rise in chargeoffs was led by loans to commercial and industrial 

(C&I) borrowers, where charge-offs increased by $4.2 

billion (170 percent); by credit cards (up $3.4 billion, 

or 68.9 percent); by real estate construction loans (up 

$2.9 billion, or 161.7 percent); and by closed-end 1–4 

family residential real estate loans (up $2.7 billion, or 

64.9 percent). Net charge-offs in all major categories 

were higher than a year ago. The annualized net 

charge-off rate on total loans and leases was 1.94 

percent, slightly below the 1.95 percent rate in the 

fourth quarter of 2008 that is the highest quarterly net 

charge-off rate in the 25 years that insured institutions 

have reported these data. Well over half of all insured 

institutions (58.3 percent) reported year-over-year 

increases in quarterly charge-offs.

Noncurrent Loans Rise by $59.2 Billion

The high level of charge-offs did not stem the growth 

in noncurrent loans in the first quarter. On the 

contrary, noncurrent loans and leases increased by 

$59.2 billion (25.5 percent), the largest quarterly 

increase in the three years that noncurrent loans have 

Chart 3

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1 2 3412341 2 3 4 1 2 3 4123 4 1

Assets < $1 Billion

Assets > $1 Billion

Community Bank Margins Declined in the First Quarter

Quarterly Net Interest Margin

(Percent)

3.56%

3.37%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
FDIC Quarterly 3 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

than half of the increase in equity consisted of goodwill). The industry’s tier one leverage capital increased 

by a record $69.8 billion (7.0 percent) during the quarter, and the average leverage capital ratio increased 

from 7.48 percent to 8.04 percent. Most of the aggregate increase in capital was concentrated among a relatively small number of institutions, including some 

institutions participating in the U.S. Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). A 

majority of institutions (55.3 percent) reported declines 

in their leverage capital ratios during the quarter. A 

number of institutions reduced their dividend payments 

in the first quarter, as the total amount of dividends 

paid by insured institutions fell by almost half ($6.8 

billion) compared to the first quarter of 2008. Of the 

3,603 institutions that paid dividends in the first quarter of 2008, two-thirds (2,337 institutions) reduced 

their dividends in the current quarter, including 995 

institutions that eliminated first quarter dividends.

Downsizing at a Few Large Banks Causes 

$302-Billion Decline in Industry Assets

Total assets declined by $301.7 billion (2.2 percent) 

during the quarter, as a few large banks reduced their 

loan portfolios and trading accounts. This is the largest 

percentage decline in industry assets in a single quarter 

in the 25 years for which quarterly data are available. 

Eight large institutions accounted for the entire decline 

in industry assets; most insured institutions (67.3 

percent) reported increased assets during the quarter, 

although only 47 percent had increases in their loan 

balances. The decline in industry assets consisted 

primarily of a $159.6-billion (2.1-percent) reduction in 

loans and leases, a $144.5-billion (14.9-percent) decline 

in assets in trading accounts, and a $91.7-billion 

been rising. The percentage of loans and leases that 

were noncurrent rose from 2.95 percent to 3.76 percent 

during the quarter; the noncurrent rate is now at the 

highest level since the second quarter of 1991. The rise 

in noncurrent loans was led by real estate loans, which 

accounted for 84 percent of the overall increase. 

Noncurrent closed-end 1–4 family residential mortgage 

loans increased by $26.7 billion (28.1 percent), while 

noncurrent real estate construction loans were up by 

$10.5 billion (20.3 percent), and noncurrent loans 

secured by nonfarm nonresidential real estate properties 

rose by $6.9 billion (40 percent). All major loan categories experienced rising levels of noncurrent loans, and 

58 percent of insured institutions reported increases in 

their noncurrent loans during the quarter.

Reserve Building Continues

Loss provisions surpassed net charge-offs by $23.1 

billion in the first quarter, and the industry’s loan loss 

reserves increased by $20.0 billion (11.5 percent). The 

ratio of reserves to total loans rose during the quarter 

from 2.21 percent to 2.50 percent, an all-time high. 

The previous record level of 2.38 percent was reached 

at the end of the first quarter of 1992. Despite the rise 

in the level of reserves relative to total loans, the industry’s ratio of reserves to noncurrent loans fell for a 12th 

consecutive quarter, from 74.8 percent to 66.5 percent, 

the lowest level in 17 years.

Industry Capital Registers Largest Quarterly 

Increase Since 2004

Total equity capital of insured institutions increased by 

$82.1 billion in the first quarter, the largest quarterly 

increase since the third quarter of 2004 (when more 

Chart 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1984 1986 1989 1991 1994 1996 1999 2001 2004 2006 2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Credit Card Charge-Off Rate

Personal Bankruptcy Filings

The Credit Card Loss Rate Is at an All-Time High

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Net Charge-Off Rate

(Percent)

Number of Bankruptcies

(Thousands)

Chart 6

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

123412341234123412341234 1

Percent

Capital Growth at Large Banks Lifted Industry Averages

Total Risk-Based Capital

Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital

Equity to Assets

Core Capital (Leverage)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
FDIC Quarterly 4 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Twenty-One Failures Is Highest Quarterly Total 

Since 1992

The number of FDIC-insured commercial banks and 

savings institutions reporting financial results declined 

from 8,305 to 8,246 in the first quarter. Mergers 

absorbed 50 institutions, while 21 insured institutions 

failed. This is the largest number of failed institutions in 

a quarter since the fourth quarter of 1992. Thirteen new 

charters were added in the first quarter, the fewest since 

the first quarter of 1994. During the quarter, the 

number of insured banks and thrifts on the FDIC’s 

“Problem List” increased from 252 to 305, and total 

assets of “problem” institutions rose from $159 billion 

to $220 billion.

Author: Ross Waldrop, Sr. Banking Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

(202) 898-3951

(12.7-percent) drop in Fed funds sold and securities 

purchased under resale agreements. Balances with 

Federal Reserve banks, which had increased by $488.2 

billion in the previous two quarters, declined by $32.5 

billion (6.3 percent) during the first quarter. Unused 

loan commitments fell for a fifth consecutive quarter, 

declining by $532.0 billion (7.4 percent). Most of the 

reduction occurred in credit card lines, which fell by 

$406.6 billion (9.9 percent), but unused commitments 

declined for all major loan categories during the quarter. The amount of assets securitized and sold declined 

by $26.6 billion (1.4 percent) during the quarter.

Deposit Share of Funding Rises Even as Total 

Deposits Decline

The decline in industry assets and the increase in equity 

capital meant a reduced need for funding during the 

quarter. Total deposits declined by $81.3 billion (0.9 

percent), while nondeposit liabilities fell by $320.2 

billion (9.1 percent). Deposits in domestic offices 

increased modestly ($41.9 billion, or 0.6 percent), with 

time deposits falling by $72.5 billion (2.6 percent). 

Deposits in foreign offices declined by $123.2 billion 

(8.0 percent). Liabilities in trading accounts fell by 

$116.8 billion (24.6 percent), while Federal Home 

Loan Bank advances declined for a second consecutive 

quarter, falling by $91.0 billion (11.6 percent). Deposits 

funded 66.1 percent of total industry assets at the end of 

the quarter, up from 65.3 percent at the end of 2008. 

This is the highest deposit funding share since 

March 2002.

Chart 7

Asset Declines at Large Banks Are Reflected in 

Industry Growth Rates*

Change in Total Assets

(Percent)

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

* Through First Quarter 2009

1.3 %

Chart 8

Failures Hit a 17-Year High in the First Quarter*

Number of failures

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

* Through First Quarter 2009. Does not include assistance transactions.
FDIC Quarterly 5 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

TABLE I-A. Selected Indicators, All FDIC-Insured Institutions* 2009** 2008** 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

Return on assets (%)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 0.22 0.58 0.04 0.81 1.28 1.

Return on equity (%)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2.26 5.69 0.41 7.75 12.30 12.4

Core capital (leverage) ratio (%) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 8.04 7.89 7.48 7.97 8.22 8.

Noncurrent assets plus other real estate owned to assets (%) ������������������������������������ 2.39 1.14 1.89 0.94 0.54 0.

Net charge-offs to loans (%) ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1.94 0.99 1.29 0.59 0.39 0.

Asset growth rate (%) ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1.29 11.58 6.21 9.89 9.04 7.6

Net interest margin (%)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3.39 3.33 3.18 3.29 3.31 3.

Net operating income growth (%)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� -69.94 -46.54 -90.13 -27.58 8.52 11.

Number of institutions reporting������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8,246 8,494 8,305 8,534 8,680 8,833 8,976

Commercial banks��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7,037 7,240 7,085 7,283 7,401 7,526 7,631

Savings institutions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,209 1,254 1,220 1,251 1,279 1,307 1,345

Percentage of unprofitable institutions (%)�������������������������������������������������������������������� 21.65 14.23 24.41 12.07 7.94 6.

Number of problem institutions �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 305 90 252 76 50 52 80

Assets of problem institutions (in billions) ��������������������������������������������������������������������� $220 $26 $159 $22 $8 $7 $28

Number of failed institutions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 2 25 3 0 0 4

Number of assisted institutions�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

* Excludes insured branches of foreign banks (IBAs)

** Through March 31, ratios annualized where appropriate. Asset growth rates are for 12 months ending March 3

TABLE II-A. Aggregate Condition and Income Data, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

(dollar figures in millions) 1st Quarter

2009

4th Quarter

2008

1st Quarter

2008

%Change 

08Q1-09Q1

Number of institutions reporting������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8,246 8,305 8,494 -2.

Total employees (full-time equivalent)��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2,114,527 2,151,758 2,212,503 -4.

CONDITION DATA

Total assets �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� $13,541,630 $13,843,297 $13,369,430 1.

Loans secured by real estate���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4,700,451 4,705,001 4,804,908 -2.

 1-4 Family residential mortgages �������������������������������������������������������������������� 2,045,216 2,045,269 2,215,134 -7.

 Nonfarm nonresidential������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1,076,859 1,066,096 990,362 8.

 Construction and development������������������������������������������������������������������������ 566,851 590,943 631,794 -10.

 Home equity lines��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 674,334 668,253 624,920 7.

Commercial & industrial loans �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,434,602 1,494,419 1,480,874 -3.

Loans to individuals������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,046,284 1,088,881 1,048,165 -0.

 Credit cards ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 403,072 444,692 386,849 4.

Farm loans��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56,150 59,912 53,954 4.

Other loans & leases����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 500,664 528,406 582,458 -14.

Less: Unearned income ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 3,996 2,876 2,455 62.

Total loans & leases ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 7,734,154 7,873,742 7,967,904 -2.

Less: Reserve for losses����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 193,626 173,657 121,112 59.

Net loans and leases����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7,540,528 7,700,085 7,846,792 -3.

Securities����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2,207,071 2,035,389 1,953,045 13.

Other real estate owned������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 29,670 26,691 15,648 89.

Goodwill and other intangibles ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 415,316 421,667 469,180 -11.

All other assets�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3,349,045 3,659,466 3,084,766 8.

Total liabilities and capital ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13,541,630 13,843,297 13,369,430 1.

Deposits������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8,954,432 9,035,732 8,565,753 4.

 Domestic office deposits���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7,538,366 7,496,432 7,068,971 6.

 Foreign office deposits������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,416,066 1,539,300 1,496,782 -5.

Other borrowed funds ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2,416,730 2,575,474 2,586,733 -6.

Subordinated debt��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 170,929 185,464 185,580 -7.

All other liabilities ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 607,862 754,808 670,412 -9.

Equity capital ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,391,678 1,291,818 1,360,952 2.

Loans and leases 30-89 days past due������������������������������������������������������������������������� 158,205 157,797 111,000 42.

Noncurrent loans and leases ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 291,233 232,013 136,900 112.

Restructured loans and leases �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32,911 23,922 14,245 131.

Direct and indirect investments in real estate ��������������������������������������������������������������� 863 906 954 -9.

Mortgage-backed securities ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1,313,042 1,299,728 1,281,381 2.

Earning assets���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11,600,674 11,772,696 11,474,467 1.

FHLB advances �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 696,672 787,690 841,580 -17.

Unused loan commitments��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6,619,585 7,151,592 8,292,731 -20.

Trust assets��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16,271,389 17,230,245 20,851,058 -22.

Assets securitized and sold***��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,884,319 1,910,882 1,721,042 9.

Notional amount of derivatives***���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203,382,420 212,103,859 181,629,418 12.

INCOME DATA

Full Year 

2008

Full Year 

2007 %Change

1st Quarter

2009

1st Quarter

2008

%Change 

08Q1-09Q1

Total interest income ������������������������������������������������������������������� $603,321 $724,858 -16.8 $142,077 $178,586 -20

Total interest expense ����������������������������������������������������������������� 245,590 372,144 -34.0 42,968 83,881 -48

Net interest income �������������������������������������������������������������� 357,731 352,714 1.4 99,109 94,704 4

Provision for loan and lease losses �������������������������������������������� 175,873 69,193 154.2 60,913 37,234 63

Total noninterest income ������������������������������������������������������������� 207,428 233,098 -11.0 68,319 60,553 12

Total noninterest expense ����������������������������������������������������������� 367,872 367,043 0.2 97,245 90,882 7

Securities gains (losses)������������������������������������������������������������� -15,309 -1,369 N/M 3,113 1,232 152.

Applicable income taxes ������������������������������������������������������������� 6,210 46,481 -86.6 4,533 8,973 -49

Extraordinary gains, net�������������������������������������������������������������� 5,358 -1,735 N/M -29 -132 N/M

Net income���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5,254 99,990 -94.8 7,560 19,270 -60

Net charge-offs���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 100,232 44,118 127.2 37,847 19,645 92

Cash dividends ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51,077 110,348 -53.7 7,237 13,992 -48

Retained earnings ����������������������������������������������������������������������� -45,823 -10,358 N/M 323 5,277 -93.

Net operating income����������������������������������������������������������� 10,111 102,406 -90.1 5,663 18,841 -69

*** Call Report filers only. N/M - Not Meaningf
FDIC Quarterly 6 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

TABLE III-A. First Quarter 2009, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Concentration Groups*

First q

(The way it is...)

All Insured 

Institutions

Credit 

Card 

Banks

International 

Banks

Agricultural 

Banks

Commercial 

Lenders

Mortgage 

Lenders

Consumer 

Lenders

Other 

Specialized

<$1 Billion

All Other 

<$1 Billion

All Other 

>$1 Billion

Number of institutions reporting����������������������� 8,246 25 5 1,524 4,681 836 80 305 745 45

Commercial banks������������������������������������� 7,037 21 5 1,519 4,188 233 62 278 695 36

Savings institutions ����������������������������������� 1,209 4 0 5 493 603 18 27 50 9

Total assets (in billions)������������������������������������ $13,541.6 $476.0 $3,203.0 $165.5 $6,003.6 $1,100.1 $73.2 $36.2 $104.

Commercial banks������������������������������������� 12,006.9 451.2 3,203.0 165.0 5,493.1 257.5 32.5 32.5 92

Savings institutions ����������������������������������� 1,534.8 24.9 0.0 0.5 510.5 842.6 40.7 3.7 

Total deposits (in billions)��������������������������������� 8,954.4 192.3 1,957.5 134.0 4,350.5 611.9 62.1 27.9 86

Commercial banks������������������������������������� 7,983.4 176.9 1,957.5 133.6 4,004.7 106.1 26.8 25.4 76

Savings institutions ����������������������������������� 971.0 15.4 0.0 0.4 345.8 505.8 35.2 2.

Net income (in millions)������������������������������������ 7,560 -1,669 5,069 312 -753 1,395 13 24 242 2,927

Commercial banks������������������������������������� 7,663 -1,891 5,069 310 371 390 -26 -23 232 3,229

Savings institutions ����������������������������������� -102 222 0 1 -1,124 1,006 39 47 9 -302

Performance Ratios (%

Yield on earning assets������������������������������������ 4.87 11.87 4.09 5.75 5.14 5.38 6.19 4.09

Cost of funding earning assets ������������������������ 1.47 1.42 1.08 1.94 1.61 2.23 1.68 1.23

Net interest margin������������������������������������ 3.39 10.44 3.00 3.81 3.53 3.16 4.51 2.87

Noninterest income to assets��������������������������� 2.00 5.99 2.34 0.62 1.65 0.87 1.85 8.33

Noninterest expense to assets������������������������� 2.84 5.97 2.51 2.62 3.22 1.84 2.99 10.13

Loan and lease loss provision to assets���������� 1.78 10.78 1.49 0.60 1.46 1.62 3.02 0.16

Net operating income to assets ����������������������� 0.17 -1.47 0.62 0.73 -0.04 0.09 0.07 0.15

Pretax return on assets ������������������������������������ 0.35 -2.18 0.79 0.92 0.03 0.92 0.12 0.76

Return on assets����������������������������������������������� 0.22 -1.36 0.61 0.75 -0.05 0.52 0.07 0.27

Return on equity ����������������������������������������������� 2.26 -6.18 7.96 6.84 -0.49 6.02 0.77 1.63

Net charge-offs to loans and leases���������������� 1.94 8.57 2.42 0.52 1.44 1.12 2.56 0.43

Loan and lease loss provision to 

net charge-offs ������������������������������������������ 160.94 170.38 162.62 176.06 146.99 215.41 142.70 149.35 147

Efficiency ratio �������������������������������������������������� 53.79 38.35 51.63 63.14 59.93 48.76 48.42 81.74 6

% of unprofitable institutions���������������������������� 21.65 56.00 0.00 7.61 28.97 16.87 16.25 19.34 1

% of institutions with earnings gains���������������� 39.64 20.00 60.00 45.41 32.73 62.20 47.50 42.95 4

Condition Ratios (%

Earning assets to total assets �������������������������� 85.67 79.87 82.56 91.78 87.39 91.24 94.42 89.92 9

Loss allowance to: ��������������������������������������������

Loans and leases �������������������������������������� 2.50 8.89 3.30 1.42 2.06 1.53 2.96 1.52

Noncurrent loans and leases �������������������� 66.49 251.73 67.95 77.23 58.29 36.71 253.80 87.90 8

Noncurrent assets plus 

other real estate owned to assets������������� 2.39 2.56 2.02 1.48 2.82 3.06 0.99 0.61

Equity capital ratio�������������������������������������������� 10.15 23.54 8.44 11.06 10.29 8.92 9.25 16.24 

Core capital (leverage) ratio����������������������������� 8.04 16.28 7.14 9.94 8.07 8.29 9.14 14.64 

Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio��������������������������� 10.74 12.64 11.37 13.53 9.76 14.94 10.95 34.41 

Total risk-based capital ratio ���������������������������� 13.46 14.35 14.95 14.62 12.37 15.95 12.86 35.20 1

Net loans and leases to deposits��������������������� 84.21 164.22 60.53 79.87 93.61 118.20 94.01 31.17 6

Net loans to total assets����������������������������������� 55.68 66.35 36.99 64.70 67.84 65.74 79.74 24.05 5

Domestic deposits to total assets �������������������� 55.67 36.57 30.54 81.01 69.42 55.62 82.90 74.97 8

Structural Change

New Charters��������������������������������������������� 13 0 0 0 3 1 0 8 1 0

Institutions absorbed by mergers ������������� 50 0 0 4 42 1 0 1 2 0

Failed Institutions �������������������������������������� 21 0 0 2 18 1 0 0 0 0

PRIOR First

(The way it was...)

Number of institutions ����������������������������� 2008 8,494 26 6 1,550 4,752 809 102 362 835 52

������������������������������������� 2006 8,790 30 4 1,647 4,629 864 120 436 1,001 59

������������������������������������� 2004 9,116 34 6 1,730 4,278 1,026 140 519 1,296 87

Total assets (in billions)��������������������������� 2008 $13,369.4 $448.5 $3,085.6 $158.0 $5,271.6 $1,364.4 $66.3 $38.2 $112.

������������������������������������� 2006 11,209.8 370.2 1,972.3 140.3 3,844.9 1,745.6 98.6 50.0 128

������������������������������������� 2004 9,377.2 332.3 1,492.8 127.7 2,898.5 1,396.0 506.3 58.8 168

Return on assets (%)������������������������������� 2008 0.58 4.59 0.35 1.19 0.78 -0.21 1.30 2.20

������������������������������������� 2006 1.34 4.57 1.16 1.26 1.35 1.05 2.19 -1.31

������������������������������������� 2004 1.38 3.93 1.12 1.27 1.33 1.17 1.52 1.38

Net charge-offs to loans & leases (%) ���� 2008 0.99 4.97 1.13 0.17 0.71 1.14 1.78 0.21

������������������������������������� 2006 0.32 2.95 0.53 0.09 0.17 0.11 0.95 0.16

������������������������������������� 2004 0.64 5.17 1.30 0.12 0.31 0.12 0.71 0.70

Noncurrent assets plus OREO to 

assets (%)�������������������� 2008 1.14 1.62 0.70 0.99 1.41 1.97 0.73 0.28

������������������������������������� 2006 0.48 1.17 0.42 0.67 0.49 0.55 0.51 0.23

������������������������������������� 2004 0.67 1.45 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.57 0.91 0.36

Equity capital ratio (%)����������������������������� 2008 10.18 22.85 7.57 11.22 11.36 8.09 9.01 20.28 

������������������������������������� 2006 10.38 27.22 7.95 10.81 10.29 10.81 9.63 19.39 

������������������������������������� 2004 9.45 17.58 7.41 10.81 9.51 9.07 8.90 16.60 

* See Table IV-A (page 8) for explanations
FDIC Quarterly 7 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

TABLE III-A. First Quarter 2009, All FDIC-Insured Institutions 

Asset Size Distribution Geographic Region

First Qu

(The way it is...)

All Insured 

Institutions

Less than 

$100 

Million

$100 

Million to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion 

to 

$10 Billion

Greater 

than 

$10 Billion New York Atlanta Chicago

Kansas 

City Dallas

San

Francisco

Number of institutions reporting����������������������������� 8,246 3,050 4,505 576 115 1,005 1,172 1,692 1,923 1,690 764

Commercial banks������������������������������������������� 7,037 2,716 3,796 438 87 530 1,033 1,393 1,819 1,566 696

Savings institutions ����������������������������������������� 1,209 334 709 138 28 475 139 299 104 124 68

Total assets (in billions)������������������������������������������ $13,541.6 $167.1 $1,359.9 $1,513.4 $10,501.3 $2,517.9 $3,521.7 $3,176.8 $1,064.5 $910

Commercial banks������������������������������������������� 12,006.9 149.4 1,111.3 1,162.1 9,584.0 1,806.0 3,369.3 3,026.5 1,015.8 66

Savings institutions ����������������������������������������� 1,534.8 17.7 248.6 351.3 917.3 711.9 152.4 150.3 48.7 

Total deposits (in billions)��������������������������������������� 8,954.4 137.5 1,092.9 1,113.8 6,610.2 1,544.0 2,464.7 2,071.2 753.0 62

Commercial banks������������������������������������������� 7,983.4 123.9 904.8 856.5 6,098.2 1,055.7 2,353.0 1,962.6 717.4 50

Savings institutions ����������������������������������������� 971.0 13.6 188.1 257.4 511.9 488.2 111.7 108.5 35.6 

Net income (in millions)������������������������������������������ 7,560 125 1,116 -657 6,976 371 1,524 1,076 1,521 826 2,242

Commercial banks������������������������������������������� 7,663 94 1,060 -448 6,956 904 2,244 1,159 1,461 200 1,696

Savings institutions ����������������������������������������� -102 31 55 -208 20 -532 -720 -83 60 626 546

Performance Ratios (annualized, %

Yield on earning assets������������������������������������������ 4.87 5.71 5.65 5.34 4.67 5.33 4.32 4.39 5.6

Cost of funding earning assets ������������������������������ 1.47 1.94 2.11 1.98 1.30 1.66 1.42 1.31 1.2

Net interest margin������������������������������������������ 3.39 3.77 3.54 3.36 3.37 3.67 2.90 3.09 4.4

Noninterest income to assets��������������������������������� 2.00 1.21 0.94 1.12 2.27 1.95 1.88 2.13 3.0

Noninterest expense to assets������������������������������� 2.84 3.83 3.11 2.88 2.79 2.75 2.63 3.06 3.8

Loan and lease loss provision to assets���������������� 1.78 0.45 0.69 1.45 1.98 2.13 1.51 1.52 2.1

Net operating income to assets ����������������������������� 0.17 0.28 0.30 -0.22 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.6

Pretax return on assets ������������������������������������������ 0.35 0.39 0.43 -0.13 0.41 0.10 0.34 0.26 0.8

Return on assets����������������������������������������������������� 0.22 0.30 0.33 -0.18 0.26 0.06 0.17 0.13 0.5

Return on equity ����������������������������������������������������� 2.26 2.36 3.31 -1.65 2.73 0.50 1.73 1.62 5.9

Net charge-offs to loans and leases���������������������� 1.94 0.54 0.71 1.41 2.27 2.21 1.79 1.62 2.1

Loan and lease loss provision to net charge-offs�� 160.94 132.01 138.76 149.73 163.48 180.24 144.38 180.59 153.02 22

Efficiency ratio �������������������������������������������������������� 53.79 80.33 72.90 65.73 50.06 51.65 56.22 56.01 53.99 

% of unprofitable institutions���������������������������������� 21.65 23.28 19.13 29.34 38.26 22.39 38.82 17.26 13.73 

% of institutions with earnings gains���������������������� 39.64 43.93 39.07 23.96 26.96 45.07 28.67 44.80 40.61 

Condition Ratios (%

Earning assets to total assets �������������������������������� 85.67 91.26 91.77 90.53 84.09 84.72 84.38 86.05 87.67 

Loss Allowance to:

Loans and leases �������������������������������������������� 2.50 1.43 1.46 1.85 2.82 2.82 2.16 2.59 2.6

Noncurrent loans and leases �������������������������� 66.49 63.96 52.52 50.47 70.87 105.08 56.15 62.28 73.78 

Noncurrent assets plus 

other real estate owned to assets������������������� 2.39 1.86 2.52 2.98 2.30 1.52 2.53 2.45 2.7

Equity capital ratio�������������������������������������������������� 10.15 12.67 9.99 10.60 10.06 12.14 10.19 8.38 9.90

Core capital (leverage) ratio����������������������������������� 8.04 12.32 9.57 9.15 7.61 9.31 6.95 7.02 8.4

Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio��������������������������������� 10.74 18.14 12.95 11.94 10.17 12.51 9.05 9.43 9.65 

Total risk-based capital ratio ���������������������������������� 13.46 19.21 14.11 13.31 13.32 14.52 12.27 12.64 12.39 

Net loans and leases to deposits��������������������������� 84.21 75.05 85.55 91.45 82.96 84.77 82.42 77.91 91.29 

Net loans to total assets����������������������������������������� 55.68 61.79 68.75 67.30 52.22 51.98 57.68 50.80 64.58 

Domestic deposits to total assets �������������������������� 55.67 82.33 80.27 72.89 49.58 53.96 62.45 51.99 65.50 

Structural Change

New Charters��������������������������������������������������� 13 12 0 0 1 1 4 3 0 2 3

Institutions absorbed by mergers ������������������� 50 22 24 3 1 9 5 13 11 10 2

Failed Institutions �������������������������������������������� 21 1 18 2 0 1 6 3 2 1 8

PRIOR First 

(The way it was...)

Number of institutions ����������������������������������� 2008 8,494 3,347 4,481 549 117 1,036 1,223 1,752 1,968 1,730 785

������������������������������������������� 2006 8,790 3,826 4,334 511 119 1,106 1,225 1,863 2,055 1,783 758

������������������������������������������� 2004 9,116 4,300 4,238 465 113 1,162 1,231 1,996 2,122 1,853 752

Total assets (in billions)��������������������������������� 2008 $13,369.4 $178.0 $1,334.3 $1,438.1 $10,419.1 $2,478.9 $3,423.5 $2,963.1 $1,000.0 $748

������������������������������������������� 2006 11,209.8 199.0 1,259.4 1,395.6 8,355.8 2,866.2 2,759.4 2,604.0 819.6 62

������������������������������������������� 2004 9,377.2 221.9 1,169.4 1,282.1 6,703.9 3,186.8 1,995.6 1,700.3 738.8 57

Return on assets (%)������������������������������������� 2008 0.58 0.73 0.79 0.76 0.53 1.04 0.32 0.75 1.39

������������������������������������������� 2006 1.34 0.95 1.11 1.30 1.39 1.30 1.33 1.10 1.5

������������������������������������������� 2004 1.38 1.00 1.17 1.48 1.41 1.32 1.32 1.38 1.5

Net charge-offs to loans & leases (%) ���������� 2008 0.99 0.20 0.30 0.70 1.16 1.15 0.76 0.84 1.1

������������������������������������������� 2006 0.32 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.39 0.47 0.16 0.23 0.3

������������������������������������������� 2004 0.64 0.19 0.22 0.44 0.78 0.96 0.36 0.43 0.9

Noncurrent assets plus

OREO to assets (%)��������������������������������������� 2008 1.14 1.09 1.33 1.44 1.08 0.81 1.08 1.09 1.5

������������������������������������������� 2006 0.48 0.69 0.52 0.44 0.48 0.39 0.31 0.53 0.8

������������������������������������������� 2004 0.67 0.84 0.66 0.59 0.68 0.69 0.46 0.79 0.8

Equity capital ratio (%)����������������������������������� 2008 10.18 13.78 10.52 11.13 9.94 12.10 10.20 9.06 9.7

������������������������������������������� 2006 10.38 12.29 10.28 10.78 10.28 11.15 9.77 9.02 10.48 

������������������������������������������� 2004 9.45 11.73 10.18 10.71 9.00 9.13 8.58 8.74 10.44

* See Table IV-A (page 9) for explanations
FDIC Quarterly 8 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

TABLE IV-A. Full Year 2008, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Concentration Groups*

Full 

(The way it is...)

All Insured 

Institutions

Credit 

Card 

Banks

International 

Banks

Agricultural 

Banks

Commercial 

Lenders

Mortgage 

Lenders

Consumer 

Lenders

Other 

Specialized

<$1 Billion

All Other 

<$1 Billion

All Other 

>$1 Billion

Number of institutions reporting����������������������������������������� 8,305 26 5 1,559 4,753 838 91 281 708 44

Commercial banks������������������������������������������������������� 7,085 22 5 1,554 4,249 230 71 259 661 34

Savings institutions ����������������������������������������������������� 1,220 4 0 5 504 608 20 22 47 10

Total assets (in billions)������������������������������������������������������ $13,843.3 $513.0 $3,410.1 $168.8 $5,461.8 $997.0 $122.2 $34.7 $94.

Commercial banks������������������������������������������������������� 12,310.9 487.1 3,410.1 168.3 4,941.4 183.1 66.0 30.5 84

Savings institutions ����������������������������������������������������� 1,532.4 26.0 0.0 0.5 520.4 813.9 56.1 4.2 

Total deposits (in billions)��������������������������������������������������� 9,035.7 200.0 2,139.2 135.6 3,872.4 548.6 87.2 25.8 77

Commercial banks������������������������������������������������������� 8,082.2 183.0 2,139.2 135.2 3,529.0 68.8 43.1 22.9 68

Savings institutions ����������������������������������������������������� 953.6 17.0 0.0 0.4 343.4 479.8 44.1 2.

Net income (in millions)������������������������������������������������������ 5,254 7,926 8,061 1,635 -6,307 -4,615 -13 487 766 -2,685

Commercial banks������������������������������������������������������� 16,004 7,592 8,061 1,631 -3,734 2,157 2 283 810 -799

Savings institutions ����������������������������������������������������� -10,751 333 0 4 -2,573 -6,771 -15 203 -44 -1,887

Performance Ratios (annualized, %

Yield on earning assets������������������������������������������������������ 5.36 12.21 5.13 6.37 5.88 4.91 6.63 4.52

Cost of funding earning assets ������������������������������������������ 2.18 2.80 2.26 2.48 2.28 2.47 2.90 1.67

Net interest margin������������������������������������������������������ 3.18 9.41 2.86 3.90 3.60 2.43 3.73 2.85

Noninterest income to assets��������������������������������������������� 1.58 8.00 1.75 0.65 1.45 0.44 1.79 11.46

Noninterest expense to assets������������������������������������������� 2.79 6.65 2.87 2.65 3.23 1.57 2.96 11.21

Loan and lease loss provision to assets���������������������������� 1.34 6.69 1.19 0.35 1.32 1.44 2.44 0.13

Net operating income to assets ����������������������������������������� 0.08 1.41 0.11 1.03 -0.06 -0.42 -0.06 1.62

Pretax return on assets ������������������������������������������������������ 0.09 2.61 0.15 1.18 -0.03 -0.38 -0.05 2.38 

Return on assets����������������������������������������������������������������� 0.04 1.70 0.25 1.00 -0.12 -0.47 -0.01 1.43 

Return on equity ����������������������������������������������������������������� 0.41 7.88 3.44 9.07 -1.13 -6.22 -0.12 7.33 

Net charge-offs to loans and leases���������������������������������� 1.29 5.94 1.43 0.41 1.14 0.86 1.74 0.34

Loan and lease loss provision to net charge-offs�������������� 175.47 151.89 204.34 130.58 163.23 247.45 172.69 149.82 136

Efficiency ratio �������������������������������������������������������������������� 59.32 39.55 65.41 62.33 61.64 57.14 55.88 76.34 6

% of unprofitable institutions���������������������������������������������� 24.41 15.38 20.00 6.74 32.74 24.58 18.68 16.73 1

% of institutions with earnings gains���������������������������������� 36.42 26.92 40.00 51.64 27.22 48.21 43.96 40.93 4

Condition Ratios (%

Earning assets to total assets �������������������������������������������� 85.04 81.38 81.54 91.24 87.54 90.96 93.78 88.05 9

Loss Allowance to:

Loans and leases �������������������������������������������������������� 2.21 7.09 2.79 1.32 1.87 1.37 2.45 1.38

Noncurrent loans and leases �������������������������������������� 74.85 255.14 72.75 92.52 65.05 40.49 165.23 133.90 8

Noncurrent assets plus

other real estate owned to assets������������������������������� 1.89 2.08 1.62 1.17 2.33 2.55 1.31 0.35

Equity capital ratio�������������������������������������������������������������� 9.33 20.47 7.01 11.00 10.05 7.45 9.85 18.57 

Core capital (leverage) ratio����������������������������������������������� 7.48 14.59 5.95 9.99 8.14 7.17 9.86 16.31 

Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio��������������������������������������������� 9.96 13.76 9.60 13.33 9.65 12.70 12.22 38.16 

Total risk-based capital ratio ���������������������������������������������� 12.78 16.15 13.73 14.39 11.98 13.66 13.92 38.99 1

Net loans and leases to deposits��������������������������������������� 85.22 179.11 58.53 81.62 96.90 119.61 108.66 30.08 6

Net loans to total assets����������������������������������������������������� 55.62 69.82 36.72 65.57 68.70 65.81 77.53 22.37 5

Domestic deposits to total assets �������������������������������������� 54.15 34.36 31.51 80.34 67.80 54.95 70.21 72.13 8

Structural Change

New Charters��������������������������������������������������������������� 98 0 0 2 28 2 0 66 0 0

Institutions absorbed by mergers ������������������������������� 292 0 2 32 217 18 1 1 12 9

Failed Institutions �������������������������������������������������������� 25 0 0 1 21 3 0 0 0 0

PRIOR Full

(The way it was...)

Number of institutions ������������������������������������������������2007 8,534 27 5 1,592 4,773 784 109 373 815 56

��������������������������������������������������������2005 8,833 33 4 1,685 4,617 887 125 425 995 62

��������������������������������������������������������2003 9,181 36 6 1,767 4,254 1,033 157 529 1,308 91

Total assets (in billions)����������������������������������������������2007 $13,034.1 $479.2 $2,784.3 $157.5 $4,619.2 $1,328.1 $94.9 $37.8 $110.

��������������������������������������������������������2005 10,878.3 359.1 1,851.2 142.3 4,257.3 1,655.1 117.3 47.7 128

��������������������������������������������������������2003 9,075.7 348.4 1,448.0 129.5 2,923.8 1,657.9 146.6 61.1 171

Return on assets (%)��������������������������������������������������2007 0.81 3.35 0.58 1.20 0.83 0.03 1.26 2.56

��������������������������������������������������������2005 1.28 2.90 0.86 1.27 1.36 1.07 1.55 2.18

��������������������������������������������������������2003 1.38 4.08 1.10 1.20 1.28 1.38 1.31 1.85

Net charge-offs to loans & leases (%) �����������������������2007 0.59 3.95 0.76 0.22 0.35 0.40 0.87 0.29

��������������������������������������������������������2005 0.49 4.64 0.87 0.18 0.23 0.12 1.44 0.26

��������������������������������������������������������2003 0.78 5.22 1.40 0.28 0.46 0.18 2.09 1.22

Noncurrent plus OREO to assets (%) ������������������������2007 0.94 1.54 0.68 0.83 1.07 1.52 1.64 0.23

��������������������������������������������������������2005 0.50 1.32 0.46 0.61 0.48 0.56 0.51 0.24

��������������������������������������������������������2003 0.75 1.63 0.93 0.81 0.68 0.73 0.99 0.33

Equity capital ratio (%)������������������������������������������������2007 10.34 21.26 8.01 11.17 11.00 8.38 12.62 19.98 1

��������������������������������������������������������2005 10.28 21.51 8.30 10.55 10.83 9.39 10.11 19.47 

��������������������������������������������������������2003 9.15 16.04 7.39 10.64 9.24 9.10 7.30 16.74 

*Asset Concentration Group Definitions (Groups are hierarchical and mutually exclusive):

Credit-card Lenders - Institutions whose credit-card loans plus securitized receivables exceed 50 percent of total assets plus securitized receivables

International Banks - Banks with assets greater than $10 billion and more than 25 percent of total assets in foreign offices

Agricultural Banks - Banks whose agricultural production loans plus real estate loans secured by farmland exceed 25 percent of the total loans and leases

Commercial Lenders - Institutions whose commercial and industrial loans, plus real estate construction and development loans, plus loans secured by commercial real estate properties 

exceed 25 percent of total assets

Mortgage Lenders - Institutions whose residential mortgage loans, plus mortgage-backed securities, exceed 50 percent of total assets

Consumer Lenders - Institutions whose residential mortgage loans, plus credit-card loans, plus other loans to individuals, exceed 50 percent of total assets

Other Specialized < $1 Billion - Institutions with assets less than $1 billion, whose loans and leases are less than 40 percent of total assets

All Other < $1 Billion - Institutions with assets less than $1 billion that do not meet any of the definitions above, they have significant lending activity with no identified asset concentrations

All Other > $1 Billion - Institutions with assets greater than $1 billion that do not meet any of the definitions above, they have significant lending activity with no identified asset 

concentrations
FDIC Quarterly 9 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

TABLE IV-A. Full Year 2008, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Size Distribution Geographic Region

Full 

(The way it is...)

All Insured 

Institutions

Less than 

$100 Million

$100 Million 

to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion 

to 

$10 Billion

Greater 

than 

$10 Billion New York Atlanta Chicago

Kansas 

City Dallas

San

Francisco

Number of institutions reporting��������������������� 8,305 3,131 4,499 561 114 1,014 1,180 1,705 1,935 1,700 771

Commercial banks����������������������������������� 7,085 2,784 3,790 425 86 530 1,041 1,407 1,829 1,575 703

Savings institutions ��������������������������������� 1,220 347 709 136 28 484 139 298 106 125 68

Total assets (in billions)���������������������������������� $13,843.3 $170.8 $1,355.0 $1,490.4 $10,827.2 $2,431.4 $3,747.5 $3,264.4 $1,057.2 $780

Commercial banks����������������������������������� 12,310.9 152.5 1,105.0 1,141.6 9,911.9 1,725.3 3,481.7 3,117.2 1,008.0 65

Savings institutions ��������������������������������� 1,532.4 18.3 250.0 348.8 915.3 706.1 265.8 147.2 49.2 

Total deposits (in billions)������������������������������� 9,035.7 139.1 1,071.9 1,080.0 6,744.6 1,534.5 2,513.5 2,155.6 718.8 57

Commercial banks����������������������������������� 8,082.2 125.1 887.4 830.6 6,239.0 1,058.5 2,363.4 2,050.6 683.3 49

Savings institutions ��������������������������������� 953.6 14.0 184.5 249.5 505.6 476.0 150.1 104.9 35.5

Net income (in millions)���������������������������������� 5,254 445 3,421 -3,929 5,316 6,933 -5,111 8,693 5,685 3,883 -14,829

Commercial banks����������������������������������� 16,004 481 3,331 -2,112 14,305 10,831 -3,447 9,827 5,748 3,658 -10,612

Savings institutions ��������������������������������� -10,751 -35 90 -1,817 -8,989 -3,898 -1,663 -1,134 -63 225 -4,217

Performance Ratios (%

Yield on earning assets���������������������������������� 5.36 6.25 6.32 5.98 5.11 6.12 4.39 4.87 6.4

Cost of funding earning assets ���������������������� 2.18 2.39 2.61 2.47 2.07 2.42 1.94 2.14 2.0

Net interest margin���������������������������������� 3.18 3.86 3.70 3.51 3.04 3.70 2.44 2.72 4.3

Noninterest income to assets������������������������� 1.58 1.11 1.05 1.12 1.72 2.17 1.15 1.84 2.6

Noninterest expense to assets����������������������� 2.79 3.79 3.24 3.09 2.68 3.13 2.24 2.59 3.8

Loan and lease loss provision to assets�������� 1.34 0.46 0.72 1.19 1.45 1.46 1.03 1.24 1.8

Net operating income to assets ��������������������� 0.08 0.29 0.36 -0.13 0.07 0.44 -0.12 0.21 0.51

Pretax return on assets ���������������������������������� 0.09 0.37 0.36 -0.19 0.09 0.55 -0.09 0.42 0.80

Return on assets��������������������������������������������� 0.04 0.27 0.26 -0.27 0.05 0.30 -0.14 0.29 0.57

Return on equity ��������������������������������������������� 0.41 2.02 2.53 -2.45 0.54 2.46 -1.36 3.43 5.84

Net charge-offs to loans and leases�������������� 1.29 0.45 0.66 1.09 1.45 1.44 1.00 1.24 1.6

Loan and lease loss provision to net 

charge-offs ���������������������������������������������� 175.47 161.56 155.49 158.37 179.27 178.81 170.31 188.17 169.62 17

Efficiency ratio ������������������������������������������������ 59.32 80.69 70.36 63.32 56.91 54.44 59.37 58.42 58.47 

% of unprofitable institutions�������������������������� 24.41 24.85 22.89 30.84 40.35 30.77 43.05 20.70 14.06 

% of institutions with earnings gains�������������� 36.42 40.66 35.32 24.42 22.81 37.38 19.24 39.53 43.88 

Condition Ratios (%

Earning assets to total assets ������������������������ 85.04 91.45 91.66 90.22 83.40 85.64 84.08 85.13 86.58 

Loss Allowance to:

Loans and leases ������������������������������������ 2.21 1.39 1.41 1.77 2.43 2.39 1.91 2.22 2.4

Noncurrent loans and leases ������������������ 74.85 71.02 59.59 59.71 79.49 114.22 64.97 67.58 80.29 

Noncurrent assets plus

other real estate owned to assets����������� 1.89 1.66 2.16 2.43 1.79 1.27 1.95 1.96 2.2

Equity capital ratio������������������������������������������ 9.33 12.89 10.01 10.68 9.01 11.34 9.56 8.07 9.4

Core capital (leverage) ratio��������������������������� 7.48 12.57 9.55 9.21 6.89 8.57 6.62 6.83 8.2

Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio������������������������� 9.96 18.25 12.75 11.77 9.21 12.27 8.67 9.10 9.74 

Total risk-based capital ratio �������������������������� 12.78 19.31 13.90 13.18 12.48 14.15 11.71 12.28 12.53 

Net loans and leases to deposits������������������� 85.22 77.63 88.38 94.41 83.40 87.85 85.47 77.17 96.06 

Net loans to total assets��������������������������������� 55.62 63.25 69.92 68.42 51.95 55.44 57.33 50.95 65.32 

Domestic deposits to total assets ������������������ 54.15 81.48 79.02 71.64 48.20 54.64 58.97 52.16 64.36 

Structural Change

New Charters������������������������������������������� 98 92 4 1 1 20 34 3 5 14 22

Institutions absorbed by mergers ����������� 292 111 146 28 7 41 72 60 56 54 9

Failed Institutions ������������������������������������ 25 6 10 6 3 0 8 2 4 3 8

PRIOR Full

(The way it was...)

Number of institutions ��������������������������� 2007 8,534 3,440 4,424 551 119 1,043 1,221 1,763 1,986 1,742 779

����������������������������������� 2005 8,833 3,864 4,339 512 118 1,110 1,227 1,874 2,070 1,791 761

����������������������������������� 2003 9,181 4,390 4,210 471 110 1,173 1,227 2,011 2,133 1,866 771

Total assets (in billions)������������������������� 2007 $13,034.1 $181.9 $1,308.8 $1,422.1 $10,121.3 $2,441.1 $3,329.6 $2,842.5 $976.3 $738

����������������������������������� 2005 10,878.3 200.8 1,247.6 1,393.2 8,036.7 2,768.2 2,683.9 2,505.8 803.7 60

����������������������������������� 2003 9,075.7 225.7 1,160.5 1,313.0 6,376.5 3,085.2 1,882.6 1,693.8 456.3 56

Return on assets (%)����������������������������� 2007 0.81 0.74 0.97 0.96 0.77 0.77 0.81 0.86 1.4

����������������������������������� 2005 1.28 0.99 1.24 1.28 1.29 1.21 1.36 0.99 1.6

����������������������������������� 2003 1.38 0.95 1.18 1.41 1.43 1.28 1.38 1.31 1.6

Net charge-offs to loans & leases (%) �� 2007 0.59 0.24 0.25 0.42 0.68 0.90 0.33 0.47 0.7

����������������������������������� 2005 0.49 0.20 0.19 0.24 0.60 0.80 0.23 0.33 0.5

����������������������������������� 2003 0.78 0.31 0.36 0.54 0.94 1.16 0.54 0.72 1.0

Noncurrent plus OREO to assets (%) ��� 2007 0.94 0.96 1.07 1.09 0.91 0.76 0.81 0.94 1.3

����������������������������������� 2005 0.50 0.69 0.52 0.44 0.50 0.44 0.30 0.54 0.8

����������������������������������� 2003 0.75 0.83 0.69 0.62 0.78 0.78 0.56 0.86 0.8

Equity capital ratio (%)��������������������������� 2007 10.34 13.73 10.49 11.34 10.12 12.06 10.30 9.23 9.74 

����������������������������������� 2005 10.28 12.16 10.20 10.68 10.18 10.54 9.80 9.23 10.45 

����������������������������������� 2003 9.15 11.49 10.05 10.34 8.66 9.05 8.78 8.49 10.59

* Regions

New York - Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, 

Rhode Island, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islan

Atlanta - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

Chicago - Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin

Kansas City - Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

Dallas - Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas

San Francisco - Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Pacific Islands, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
FDIC Quarterly 10 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

TABLE V-A. Loan Performance, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Concentration Groups*

March 31, 2009 All Insured 

Institutions

Credit 

Card 

Banks

International 

Banks

Agricultural 

Banks

Commercial 

Lenders

Mortgage 

Lenders

Consumer 

Lenders

Other 

Specialized

<$1 Billion

All Other 

<$1 

Billion

All Other 

>$1 

Billion

Percent of Loans 30-89 Days Past Due

All loans secured by real estate ��������������������������������������� 2.44 2.27 3.43 1.89 2.16 2.49 1.14 2.00

Construction and development��������������������������������� 3.56 0.00 2.74 5.66 3.61 5.40 1.35 4.80

Nonfarm nonresidential��������������������������������������������� 1.37 0.00 1.07 1.71 1.38 1.22 1.54 1.49

Multifamily residential real estate ����������������������������� 1.37 0.00 1.23 1.14 1.45 1.40 0.82 1.65

Home equity loans����������������������������������������������������� 1.54 1.56 1.94 0.64 1.17 1.79 1.02 0.71

Other 1-4 family residential��������������������������������������� 3.16 2.97 4.89 2.08 2.70 2.57 1.24 2.09

Commercial and industrial loans ������������������������������������� 0.99 4.99 0.51 1.97 1.04 1.03 1.98 1.52

Loans to individuals���������������������������������������������������������� 2.45 3.24 2.33 2.08 2.28 1.61 1.71 1.55

Credit card loans ������������������������������������������������������� 2.99 3.09 3.29 2.49 2.64 2.96 1.48 1.30

Other loans to individuals ����������������������������������������� 2.12 4.25 1.94 2.05 2.21 1.25 1.78 1.56

All other loans and leases (including farm) ��������������������� 0.66 0.02 0.41 1.54 0.81 0.76 0.52 0.78

Total loans and leases������������������������������������������������������ 2.04 3.18 2.22 1.83 1.86 2.40 1.53 1.78

Percent of Loans Noncurrent**

All real estate loans ���������������������������������������������������������� 4.89 1.46 6.77 2.19 4.58 4.39 1.09 2.09

Construction and development.................................. 10.92 0.

Nonfarm nonresidential��������������������������������������������� 2.25 0.00 2.18 2.42 2.21 2.41 2.11 1.58

Multifamily residential real estate ����������������������������� 2.45 0.00 1.83 1.68 2.65 2.11 1.22 2.73

Home equity loans����������������������������������������������������� 1.99 0.85 1.99 0.76 1.29 2.22 0.65 0.35

Other 1-4 family residential��������������������������������������� 5.95 1.92 10.27 1.34 5.17 4.45 1.43 2.10

Commercial and industrial loans ������������������������������������� 2.23 4.77 3.72 2.19 1.81 1.19 0.65 1.60

Loans to individuals���������������������������������������������������������� 2.11 3.69 2.53 0.93 1.30 1.20 1.25 0.64

Credit card loans ������������������������������������������������������� 3.48 3.58 3.92 3.24 3.36 3.36 1.81 0.44

Other loans to individuals ����������������������������������������� 1.26 4.41 1.97 0.79 0.94 0.63 1.08 0.65

All other loans and leases (including farm) ��������������������� 1.30 0.06 2.29 0.98 0.96 0.57 0.21 1.03

Total loans and leases������������������������������������������������������ 3.76 3.53 4.85 1.84 3.54 4.16 1.16 1.73

Percent of Loans Charged-off (net, YTD)

All real estate loans ���������������������������������������������������������� 1.44 2.04 2.37 0.39 1.20 1.04 1.18 0.29

Construction and development��������������������������������� 3.20 0.00 0.96 2.61 3.22 3.79 0.03 0.14

Nonfarm nonresidential��������������������������������������������� 0.39 0.00 0.22 0.24 0.42 0.20 0.12 0.02

Multifamily residential real estate ����������������������������� 0.56 0.00 0.37 0.10 0.60 0.99 0.00 0.00

Home equity loans����������������������������������������������������� 2.36 0.00 2.68 0.36 1.65 2.54 1.83 0.28

Other 1-4 family residential��������������������������������������� 1.36 2.94 3.04 0.23 0.82 0.86 0.55 0.54

Commercial and industrial loans ������������������������������������� 1.82 12.31 2.23 0.84 1.56 0.57 7.83 0.51

Loans to individuals���������������������������������������������������������� 4.88 8.75 4.17 0.86 3.30 3.52 2.80 0.44

Credit card loans ������������������������������������������������������� 7.79 8.23 6.32 6.83 8.37 9.13 4.88 0.64

Other loans to individuals ����������������������������������������� 2.97 12.38 3.22 0.50 2.40 1.99 2.13 0.43

All other loans and leases (including farm) ��������������������� 0.87 0.01 0.85 0.00 1.02 1.03 3.19 1.50

Total loans and leases������������������������������������������������������ 1.94 8.57 2.41 0.52 1.44 1.12 2.54 0.43

Loans Outstanding (in billions)

All real estate loans ���������������������������������������������������������� $4,700.5 $0.2 $606.9 $63.3 $2,739.3 $682.8 $19.0 $5.6 $4

Construction and development��������������������������������� 566.9 0.0 12.9 5.1 480.1 15.5 0.4 0.

Nonfarm nonresidential��������������������������������������������� 1,076.9 0.0 33.9 17.6 897.9 32.3 0.8 1.8

Multifamily residential real estate ����������������������������� 210.6 0.0 40.4 1.3 141.5 12.8 0.1 0.

Home equity loans����������������������������������������������������� 674.3 0.0 145.6 1.3 328.7 56.2 9.8 0.2

Other 1-4 family residential��������������������������������������� 2,045.2 0.1 328.2 16.5 841.9 565.3 7.8 2.7 

Commercial and industrial loans ������������������������������������� 1,434.6 33.8 270.4 14.7 833.2 19.1 2.9 1.3

Loans to individuals���������������������������������������������������������� 1,046.3 288.0 188.8 6.2 345.1 25.9 37.9 1.3

Credit card loans ������������������������������������������������������� 403.1 250.5 53.9 0.4 51.2 5.5 8.8 0.

Other loans to individuals ����������������������������������������� 643.2 37.5 134.9 5.8 293.9 20.4 29.1 1.3

All other loans and leases (including farm) ��������������������� 556.8 24.7 161.7 24.4 241.8 6.7 0.8 0.

Total loans and leases������������������������������������������������������ 7,738.2 346.7 1,227.8 108.6 4,159.5 734.5 60.6 8.8 58

Memo: Other Real Estate Owned (in millions

All other real estate owned����������������������������������������������� 29,669.6 -37.6 2,649.5 441.2 21,685.7 3,015.2 20.6 56.7 258

Construction and development��������������������������������� 11,036.0 0.0 25.0 171.4 9,783.8 713.7 3.7 16.8 

Nonfarm nonresidential��������������������������������������������� 3,641.5 0.2 97.0 120.2 3,087.2 96.9 4.0 10.7 

Multifamily residential real estate ����������������������������� 1,467.0 0.0 31.0 28.0 1,252.4 33.8 0.0 0.9 

1-4 family residential ������������������������������������������������� 11,357.5 0.1 1,858.5 92.6 6,235.5 1,968.0 12.6 26.5 100

Farmland�������������������������������������������������������������������� 122.4 0.0 0.0 28.4 82.8 2.8 0.2 1

GNMA properties������������������������������������������������������� 1,948.3 0.0 499.0 0.6 1,235.8 212.7 0.0 0

* See Table IV-A (page 8) for explanations

** Noncurrent loan rates represent the percentage of loans in each category that are past due 90 days or more or that are in nonaccrual status
FDIC Quarterly 11 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

TABLE V-A. Loan Performance, All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Asset Size Distribution Geographic Region

March 31, 2009 All Insured 

Institutions

Less than 

$100 

Million

$100 

Million to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion 

to 

$10 Billion

Greater 

than 

$10 Billion New York Atlanta Chicago

Kansas 

City Dallas

San

Francisco

Percent of Loans 30–89 Days Past Due 

All loans secured by real estate ������������������������������ 2.44 1.96 1.90 1.81 2.73 1.59 2.80 2.77 1.5

Construction and development������������������������ 3.56 2.65 3.24 3.34 3.83 3.00 3.15 4.56 3.0

Nonfarm nonresidential������������������������������������ 1.37 1.69 1.51 1.25 1.34 1.42 1.38 1.71 1.0

Multifamily residential real estate �������������������� 1.37 1.37 1.67 1.37 1.29 0.97 1.60 1.76 0.9

Home equity loans�������������������������������������������� 1.54 0.85 0.91 0.83 1.65 0.65 1.98 1.48 1.2

Other 1-4 family residential������������������������������ 3.16 2.31 1.90 1.84 3.59 1.66 3.92 3.70 1.7

Commercial and industrial loans ���������������������������� 0.99 2.05 1.60 1.10 0.90 1.46 0.90 0.99 1.3

Loans to individuals������������������������������������������������� 2.45 2.41 1.94 1.86 2.53 3.13 2.38 1.97 2.7

Credit card loans ���������������������������������������������� 2.99 2.15 2.72 2.01 3.05 3.33 2.66 2.66 3.0

Other loans to individuals �������������������������������� 2.12 2.42 1.88 1.80 2.16 2.78 2.30 1.77 2.5

All other loans and leases (including farm) ������������ 0.66 1.29 1.06 1.00 0.58 0.47 0.57 0.78 0.8

Total loans and leases��������������������������������������������� 2.04 1.94 1.83 1.68 2.15 1.83 2.22 2.16 1.6

Percent of Loans Noncurrent** 

All real estate loans ������������������������������������������������� 4.89 2.53 3.13 4.40 5.48 2.74 5.45 5.82 5.1

Construction and development������������������������ 10.92 7.60 9.12 12.53 10.97 9.47 10.29 13.49 9.48

Nonfarm nonresidential������������������������������������ 2.25 2.42 2.08 2.07 2.41 2.46 2.29 2.83 2.0

Multifamily residential real estate �������������������� 2.45 2.34 2.35 3.50 2.11 1.49 3.35 3.12 1.8

Home equity loans�������������������������������������������� 1.99 1.06 0.93 1.01 2.15 0.72 3.01 1.67 1.7

Other 1-4 family residential������������������������������ 5.95 1.78 1.92 3.08 7.15 2.32 6.66 8.00 9.1

Commercial and industrial loans ���������������������������� 2.23 2.35 1.96 1.99 2.30 2.38 1.48 2.00 1.7

Loans to individuals������������������������������������������������� 2.11 1.02 0.87 1.01 2.28 3.13 1.28 1.34 2.2

Credit card loans ���������������������������������������������� 3.48 2.24 2.34 2.06 3.57 3.83 2.59 2.90 3.2

Other loans to individuals �������������������������������� 1.26 1.01 0.75 0.62 1.37 1.93 0.87 0.89 1.3

All other loans and leases (including farm) ������������ 1.30 0.87 0.83 0.92 1.38 1.15 0.59 1.10 0.7

Total loans and leases��������������������������������������������� 3.76 2.23 2.78 3.66 3.98 2.68 3.85 4.17 3.5

Percent of Loans Charged-off (net, YTD) 

All real estate loans ������������������������������������������������� 1.44 0.45 0.60 1.20 1.72 0.60 1.88 1.56 1.3

Construction and development������������������������ 3.20 1.99 2.08 3.72 3.46 1.91 2.96 3.70 2.3

Nonfarm nonresidential������������������������������������ 0.39 0.28 0.24 0.44 0.45 0.51 0.42 0.51 0.2

Multifamily residential real estate �������������������� 0.56 0.23 0.38 0.70 0.56 0.55 0.73 0.72 0.2

Home equity loans�������������������������������������������� 2.36 0.58 0.55 0.82 2.63 0.80 3.26 1.79 3.0

Other 1-4 family residential������������������������������ 1.36 0.27 0.32 0.68 1.65 0.43 1.83 1.61 0.9

Commercial and industrial loans ���������������������������� 1.82 1.06 1.07 1.45 1.96 2.60 1.08 1.16 2.1

Loans to individuals������������������������������������������������� 4.88 0.77 1.63 3.56 5.18 7.04 3.42 3.18 6.5

Credit card loans ���������������������������������������������� 7.79 4.59 9.93 6.46 7.84 8.10 7.70 6.74 9.9

Other loans to individuals �������������������������������� 2.97 0.71 0.96 2.45 3.21 5.12 2.17 2.06 3.6

All other loans and leases (including farm) ������������ 0.87 0.00 0.44 0.98 0.91 0.38 0.53 1.11 0.5

Total loans and leases��������������������������������������������� 1.94 0.54 0.71 1.41 2.27 2.21 1.79 1.62 2.1

Loans Outstanding (in billions) 

All real estate loans ������������������������������������������������� $4,700.5 $72.3 $742.4 $769.2 $3,116.6 $813.4 $1,284.5 $1,004.1 $397.3 $4

Construction and development������������������������ 566.9 8.1 125.8 147.5 285.4 64.4 196.9 104.1 48.

Nonfarm nonresidential������������������������������������ 1,076.9 21.8 265.0 269.6 520.5 201.3 287.6 206.5 107.0 

Multifamily residential real estate �������������������� 210.6 2.0 30.9 45.7 132.1 53.4 37.7 61.3 11

Home equity loans�������������������������������������������� 674.3 2.5 39.4 51.0 581.4 69.6 218.7 202.1 81.

Other 1-4 family residential������������������������������ 2,045.2 29.4 249.9 240.6 1,525.3 419.8 524.0 413.1 128.1 

Commercial and industrial loans ���������������������������� 1,434.6 14.5 123.4 156.2 1,140.5 185.2 402.7 333.7 140.6 

Loans to individuals������������������������������������������������� 1,046.3 7.4 45.6 76.3 916.9 273.6 234.7 180.2 95.2

Credit card loans ���������������������������������������������� 403.1 0.1 3.4 20.7 378.8 173.1 55.8 40.2 41

Other loans to individuals �������������������������������� 643.2 7.3 42.2 55.6 538.1 100.5 178.9 140.0 53.7

All other loans and leases (including farm) ������������ 556.8 10.5 37.8 36.9 471.5 74.9 154.6 138.7 73.

Total loans and leases��������������������������������������������� 7,738.2 104.8 949.2 1,038.6 5,645.6 1,347.1 2,076.5 1,656.8 706.2 59

Memo: Other Real Estate Owned (in millions)

All other real estate owned�������������������������������������� 29,669.6 768.7 7,861.4 6,748.5 14,291.0 2,010.3 9,030.8 7,698.3 3,508.5 3,23

Construction and development������������������������ 11,036.0 250.5 4,058.2 3,382.8 3,344.6 658.4 3,774.8 1,870.0 1,284.2 1,32

Nonfarm nonresidential������������������������������������ 3,641.5 202.8 1,471.0 951.0 1,016.7 366.1 1,006.7 789.6 531.1 

Multifamily residential real estate �������������������� 1,467.0 16.4 274.6 725.6 450.5 68.2 362.8 736.8 84.2

1-4 family residential ���������������������������������������� 11,357.5 278.2 1,978.9 1,555.2 7,545.1 878.5 3,720.4 3,370.9 815.9 1,17

Farmland����������������������������������������������������������� 122.4 20.4 73.0 18.4 10.7 9.9 15.8 20.5 22

GNMA properties���������������������������������������������� 1,948.3 0.4 7.2 116.3 1,824.4 19.6 163.0 906.9 770.

* See Table IV-A (page 9) for explanations

** Noncurrent loan rates represent the percentage of loans in each category that are past due 90 days or more or that are in nonaccrual status
FDIC Quarterly 12 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

TABLE VI-A. Derivatives, All FDIC-Insured Commercial Banks and State-Chartered Savings Banks

Asset Size Distributio

(dollar figures in millions;

notional amounts unless otherwise indicated)

1st Quarter

2009

4th Quarter 

2008

3rd Quarter 

2008

2nd Quarter 

2008

1st Quarter 

2008

%Change 

08Q1-

09Q1

Less 

Than $100 

Million

$100 

Million to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion 

to $10 

Billion

Greater Than 

$10 Billion

ALL DERIVATIVE HOLD

Number of institutions reporting derivatives����������������� 1,158 1,100 1,070 1,068 1,102 5.1 90 694 292 8

Total assets of institutions reporting derivatives ���������� $10,668,402 $10,974,274 $10,723,571 $10,105,028 $10,197,073 4.6 $6,257 $296,360 $885,022 $9,480,76

Total deposits of institutions reporting derivatives������� 6,979,825 7,090,613 6,801,837 6,451,180 6,473,273 7.8 5,114 235,554 653,174 6,085,98

Total derivatives������������������������������������������������������������� 203,382,420 212,103,859 177,103,461 183,304,344 181,629,418 12.0 318 24,546 80,336 203,277,21

Derivative Contracts by Underlying Risk Exposur

Interest rate�������������������������������������������������������������������� 169,389,934 175,886,850 137,205,585 144,933,737 141,907,944 19.4 304 24,246 76,147 169,289,23

Foreign exchange*��������������������������������������������������������� 16,272,941 16,922,815 19,729,753 19,419,103 19,738,313 -17.6 0 23 2,572 16,270,34

Equity ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2,174,368 2,206,793 2,786,005 2,345,171 2,411,871 -9.8 15 121 987 2,173,24

Commodity & other (excluding credit derivatives)�������� 938,063 1,049,941 1,233,751 1,137,524 1,129,869 -17.0 0 125 258 937,68

Credit������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 14,607,114 16,037,461 16,148,367 15,468,809 16,441,421 -11.2 0 31 371 14,606,71

Total�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203,382,420 212,103,859 177,103,461 183,304,344 181,629,418 12.0 318 24,546 80,336 203,277,21

Derivative Contracts by Transaction Type 

Swaps ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133,873,373 143,111,973 108,289,334 114,178,361 112,593,450 18.9 17 10,196 49,642 133,813,51

Futures & forwards �������������������������������������������������������� 23,581,538 22,513,758 24,483,732 23,582,916 22,361,972 5.5 142 6,012 13,838 23,561,54

Purchased options��������������������������������������������������������� 14,936,251 14,821,778 13,485,926 14,501,600 14,286,015 4.6 16 1,584 4,514 14,930,13

Written options��������������������������������������������������������������� 14,983,291 14,919,984 13,450,147 14,415,326 14,705,774 1.9 143 6,715 11,772 14,964,66

Total�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 187,374,452 195,367,494 159,709,139 166,678,203 163,947,211 14.3 318 24,507 79,766 187,269,86

Fair Value of Derivative Contracts 

Interest rate contracts���������������������������������������������������� 137,575 131,152 27,300 75,946 62,578 119.8 1 -7 182 137,39

Foreign exchange contracts������������������������������������������ -10,460 -16,942 15,054 32,017 9,670 N/M 0 0 8 -10,469

Equity contracts������������������������������������������������������������� 3,114 2,871 3,742 -3,742 -2,306 N/M 1 1 12 3,099

Commodity & other (excluding credit derivatives)�������� 4,158 3,850 3,175 5,063 3,346 24.3 0 2 3 4,15

Credit derivatives as guarantor������������������������������������� -959,081 -960,572 -566,035 -398,893 -474,045 N/M 0 0 3 -959,083

Credit derivatives as beneficiary����������������������������������� 1,031,185 1,031,630 603,936 428,844 501,034 105.8 0 0 -3 1,031,18

Derivative Contracts by Maturity** 

Interest rate contracts ����������������������������� < 1 year 68,435,870 58,610,008 40,400,256 44,995,183 42,621,769 60.6 119 5,106 16,107 68,414,53

 ������������������������������������������ 1-5 years 37,293,367 47,456,476 37,760,963 39,521,416 39,752,501 -6.2 13 7,479 25,726 37,260,15

 ������������������������������������������ > 5 years 29,985,002 36,868,293 28,785,014 29,704,389 30,134,307 -0.5 9 4,307 19,402 29,961,28

Foreign exchange contracts ������������������� < 1 year 9,234,329 10,561,395 12,664,219 12,345,486 12,524,601 -26.3 0 12 1,850 9,232,46

 ������������������������������������������ 1-5 years 2,163,751 2,168,136 1,787,926 1,929,554 1,924,840 12.4 0 4 22 2,163,72

 ������������������������������������������ > 5 years 1,056,793 1,079,943 676,596 734,445 714,769 47.9 0 0 10 1,056,78

Equity contracts��������������������������������������� < 1 year 348,776 409,029 508,748 504,258 509,709 -31.6 2 20 113 348,64

 ������������������������������������������ 1-5 years 286,171 256,252 332,908 207,513 287,805 -0.6 4 42 430 285,69

 ������������������������������������������ > 5 years 82,843 72,337 81,967 76,283 39,960 107.3 0 3 8 82,83

Commodity & other contracts ����������������� < 1 year 279,748 264,916 294,036 315,202 369,747 -24.3 0 0 206 279,54

 ������������������������������������������ 1-5 years 206,173 261,768 288,860 267,344 277,956 -25.8 0 62 1 206,11

 ������������������������������������������ > 5 years 41,546 45,021 88,822 28,367 33,492 24.0 0 10 0 41,53

Risk-Based Capital: Credit Equivalent Amount

Total current exposure to tier 1 capital (%)������������������� 86.1 107.4 60.3 57.8 67.1 0.3 0.7

Total potential future exposure to tier 1 capital (%)������ 89.6 103.1 122.3 118.5 122.7 0.1 0.4 

Total exposure (credit equivalent amount) 

to tier 1 capital (%)�������������������������������������������������� 175.7 210.5 182.6 176.3 189.9 0.4 1.1 

Credit losses on derivatives***���������������������������������� 218.1 1,072.4 226.7 134.8 14.8 N/M 0.0 1.8 

HELD FOR TRADIN

Number of institutions reporting derivatives����������������� 197 181 186 182 171 15.2 7 67 68 5

Total assets of institutions reporting derivatives ���������� 9,015,841 9,414,088 9,234,891 8,596,866 8,622,620 4.6 454 30,233 291,700 8,693,45

Total deposits of institutions reporting derivatives������� 5,885,814 6,085,224 5,855,784 5,502,108 5,465,692 7.7 355 24,197 213,231 5,648,03

Derivative Contracts by Underlying Risk Exposur

Interest rate�������������������������������������������������������������������� 167,216,926 173,365,616 134,667,872 142,264,748 139,197,869 20.1 12 1,174 28,053 167,187,68

Foreign exchange���������������������������������������������������������� 14,766,077 16,147,796 18,396,233 18,166,939 18,413,311 -19.8 0 0 2,144 14,763,93

Equity ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2,162,149 2,195,068 2,773,712 2,333,980 2,403,326 -10.0 3 0 258 2,161,88

Commodity & other�������������������������������������������������������� 935,634 1,047,507 1,230,649 1,134,781 1,128,387 -17.1 0 0 141 935,49

Total�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185,080,786 192,755,987 157,068,466 163,900,447 161,142,893 14.9 15 1,174 30,597 185,048,99

Trading Revenues: Cash & Derivative Instruments

Interest rate�������������������������������������������������������������������� 9,078 -3,430 950 1,503 1,724 426.6 0 0 5 9,07

Foreign exchange���������������������������������������������������������� 2,436 4,093 3,090 2,096 2,084 16.9 0 0 5 2,43

Equity ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,043 -1,230 -923 185 -18 N/M 0 0 -1 1,043

Commodity & other (including credit derivatives) �������� -2,810 -8,618 3,305 -1,944 -2,791 N/M 0 0 0 -2,810

Total trading revenues��������������������������������������������������� 9,747 -9,186 6,422 1,839 998 876.7 0 0 10 9,73

Share of Revenu

Trading revenues to gross revenues (%) ���������������������� 7.3 -8.1 4.6 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.

Trading revenues to net operating revenues (%)���������� 132.4 44.2 66.9 24.8 9.7 0.0 1.1 -

HELD FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN T

Number of institutions reporting derivatives����������������� 1,037 996 970 975 1,013 2.4 83 626 252 7

Total assets of institutions reporting derivatives ���������� 10,301,778 10,463,328 10,396,562 9,806,938 9,914,653 3.9 5,803 267,086 746,480 9,282,40

Total deposits of institutions reporting derivatives������� 6,727,535 6,819,580 6,589,374 6,256,368 6,288,937 7.0 4,759 211,922 550,619 5,960,23

Derivative Contracts by Underlying Ris

Exposure 

Interest rate�������������������������������������������������������������������� 2,173,008 2,521,235 2,537,713 2,668,989 2,710,074 -19.8 292 23,073 48,094 2,101,54

Foreign exchange���������������������������������������������������������� 106,011 76,113 87,565 94,832 84,217 25.9 0 15 230 105,76

Equity ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12,219 11,725 12,293 11,191 8,545 43.0 11 120 728 11,35

Commodity & other�������������������������������������������������������� 2,429 2,434 3,101 2,743 1,482 63.9 0 125 117 2,18

Total notional amount ���������������������������������������������������� 2,293,666 2,611,507 2,640,673 2,777,756 2,804,318 -18.2 303 23,333 49,169 2,220,86

All line items are reported on a quarterly basis. N/M - Not Meaningfu

*Include spot foreign exchange contracts. All other references to foreign exchange contracts in which notional values or fair values are reported exclude spot foreign exchange contract

** Derivative contracts subject to the risk-based capital requirements for derivatives

*** The reporting of credit losses on derivatives is applicable to all banks filing the FFIEC 031 report form and to those banks filing the FFIEC 041 report form that have $300 million or more 

in total assets
FDIC Quarterly 13 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

TABLE VII-A. Servicing, Securitization, and Asset Sales Activities (All FDIC-Insured Commercial Banks and State-Chartered 

Savings Banks)

Asset Size Distributio

(dollar figures in millions)

1st 

Quarter

2009

4th 

Quarter 

2008

3rd 

Quarter 

2008

2nd 

Quarter 

2008

1st 

Quarter 

2008

%Change 

08Q1-

09Q1

Less Than 

$100 

Million

$100 

Million to 

$1 Billion

$1 Billion 

to $10 

Billion

Greater 

Than $10 

Billion

Assets Securitized and Sold with Servicing Retained or with Recourse or Other Seller-Provided Credit Enhance

Number of institutions reporting securitization activities ����������������������������������������� 137 132 128 130 132 3.8 16 60 20 4

Outstanding Principal Balance by Asset Type 

1-4 family residential loans�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� $1,234,653 $1,256,021 $1,217,682 $1,087,215 $1,068,631 15.5 $113 $867 $1,928 $1,231,74

Home equity loans��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6,595 6,692 6,880 7,822 8,341 -20.9 0 0 48 6,54

Credit card receivables�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 399,113 398,261 417,832 409,883 402,171 -0.8 0 3,215 11,847 384,05

Auto loans ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11,230 12,040 13,842 6,224 7,495 49.8 0 0 106 11,12

Other consumer loans ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 26,692 27,427 28,090 28,870 27,787 -3.9 0 0 0 26,69

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 8,317 9,705 11,080 12,491 12,555 -33.8 0 2 4,179 4,13

All other loans, leases, and other assets* �������������������������������������������������������� 197,717 200,736 200,879 194,756 194,061 1.9 48 74 149 197,44

Total securitized and sold������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1,884,319 1,910,882 1,896,284 1,747,262 1,721,042 9.5 161 4,158 18,257 1,861,74

Maximum Credit Exposure by Asset Type 

1-4 family residential loans�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6,279 6,898 7,514 7,121 7,019 -10.5 2 16 0 6,26

Home equity loans��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,120 1,247 1,347 1,527 1,752 -36.1 0 0 0 1,12

Credit card receivables�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39,100 23,228 24,039 23,129 21,412 82.6 0 410 1,492 37,19

Auto loans ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 912 707 447 352 405 125.2 0 0 8 90

Other consumer loans ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,429 1,532 1,428 1,417 1,406 1.6 0 0 0 1,42

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 367 137 170 311 276 33.0 0 0 44 32

All other loans, leases, and other assets���������������������������������������������������������� 301 725 714 1,128 2,297 -86.9 1 8 8 28

Total credit exposure ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49,509 34,474 35,660 34,984 34,568 43.2 3 434 1,552 47,51

Total unused liquidity commitments provided to institution's own securitizations ���� 397 830 1,273 1,902 2,944 -86.5 0 0 0 39

Securitized Loans, Leases, and Other Assets 30-89 Days Past Due (%)

1-4 family residential loans�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4.1 4.4 3.8 2.8 2.5 1.5 1.

Home equity loans��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1.1 1.4 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.

Credit card receivables�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.1 2.2 0.0 1.

Auto loans ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2.0 2.5 2.1 2.2 1.9 0.0 0.

Other consumer loans ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3.1 3.9 3.2 2.7 2.5 0.0 0.

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 3.1 2.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.0 0.

All other loans, leases, and other assets���������������������������������������������������������� 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.

Total loans, leases, and other assets ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 3.5 3.7 3.1 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.

Securitized Loans, Leases, and Other Assets 90 Days or More Past Due (%)

1-4 family residential loans�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5.8 4.5 3.2 1.9 1.9 1.2 0.

Home equity loans��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.

Credit card receivables�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3.0 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.0 1.

Auto loans ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.

Other consumer loans ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3.5 3.7 2.9 2.4 2.3 0.0 0.

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 3.1 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.

All other loans, leases, and other assets���������������������������������������������������������� 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.

Total loans, leases, and other assets ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 4.6 3.6 2.6 1.8 1.8 0.8 1.

Securitized Loans, Leases, and Other Assets Charged-Off

(net, YTD, annualized, %) 

1-4 family residential loans�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.

Home equity loans��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.

Credit card receivables�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2.1 6.4 4.4 2.8 1.4 0.0 1.

Auto loans ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.

Other consumer loans ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 2.6 5.9 3.6 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.

All other loans, leases, and other assets���������������������������������������������������������� 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

Total loans, leases, and other assets ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 0.6 1.6 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.0 1.

Seller's Interests in Institution's Own Securitizations - Carried as Loan

Home equity loans��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 165 124 166 435 282 -41.5 0 0 0 16

Credit card receivables�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 77,212 113,017 98,826 82,604 73,418 5.2 0 309 3,741 73,16

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 450 436 636 3,506 3,263 -86.2 0 0 419 3

Seller's Interests in Institution's Own Securitizations - Carried as Securiti

Home equity loans��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 5 6 7 9 -44.4 0 0 0 

Credit card receivables�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 556 584 623 403 377 47.5 0 3 553 

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 0 16 15 1 1 -100.0 0 0 0 

Assets Sold with Recourse and Not Securitiz

Number of institutions reporting asset sales ���������������������������������������������������� 809 793 786 776 760 6.4 155 494 114 4

Outstanding Principal Balance by Asset Type 

1-4 family residential loans�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69,806 66,452 68,709 65,959 60,386 15.6 1,076 9,049 3,961 55,72

Home equity, credit card receivables, auto, and other consumer loans ��������� 1,348 1,477 1,611 1,786 1,886 -28.5 0 30 73 1,24

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 6,028 6,698 7,314 4,794 4,579 31.6 1 65 1 5,96

All other loans, leases, and other assets���������������������������������������������������������� 46,418 42,613 41,501 33,191 29,134 59.3 0 65 402 45,95

Total sold and not securitized������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 123,600 117,239 119,135 105,730 95,985 28.8 1,078 9,209 4,436 108,87

Maximum Credit Exposure by Asset Type 

1-4 family residential loans�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15,263 15,458 15,735 14,678 14,070 8.5 80 1,647 2,295 11,24

Home equity, credit card receivables, auto, and other consumer loans ��������� 183 189 203 240 165 10.9 0 11 64 10

Commercial and industrial loans����������������������������������������������������������������������� 4,995 5,617 6,180 3,614 3,335 49.8 1 53 1 4,94

All other loans, leases, and other assets���������������������������������������������������������� 9,770 9,290 11,517 8,541 8,112 20.4 0 13 69 9,68

Total credit exposure ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30,210 30,554 33,634 27,072 25,682 17.6 81 1,724 2,429 25,97

Support for Securitization Facilities Sponsored by Other Institutio

Number of institutions reporting securitization facilities sponsored by others ������� 54 51 49 47 48 12.5 21 25 3 

Total credit exposure ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2,125 3,319 9,143 12,668 6,825 -68.9 9 52 7 2,05

Total unused liquidity commitments ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 936 1,416 3,531 5,492 6,778 -86.2 0 0 0 93

Other

Assets serviced for others**�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5,679,243 5,615,119 5,528,963 3,921,914 3,813,285 48.9 4,005 71,108 85,834 5,518,29

Asset-backed commercial paper conduits 

Credit exposure to conduits sponsored by institutions and others������������������ 22,981 23,064 20,830 21,083 22,332 2.9 3 0 484 22,49

Unused liquidity commitments to conduits sponsored by institutions 

 and others �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 273,542 297,908 311,683 339,007 354,525 -22.8 0 26 0 273,51

Net servicing income (for the quarter)���������������������������������������������������������������������� 5,954 -335 4,110 7,280 3,532 68.6 7 153 164 5,63

Net securitization income (for the quarter)��������������������������������������������������������������� 2,124 2,393 3,120 4,206 5,541 -61.7 0 47 191 1,88

Total credit exposure to Tier 1 capital (%)***������������������������������������������������������������ 7.6 6.8 8.0 7.4 6.6 0.5 1.

*Line item titled “All other loans and all leases” for quarters prior to March 31, 2006

**The amount of financial assets serviced for others, other than closed-end 1-4 family residential mortgages, is reported when these assets are greater than $10 million

***Total credit exposure includes the sum of the three line items titled “Total credit exposure” reported above
FDIC Quarterly 14 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

During the first quarter of 2009, total assets of the 

nation’s 8,246 FDIC-insured commercial banks and 

savings institutions decreased by $301.7 billion (2.2 

percent). Total deposits decreased by 0.9 percent; 

domestic office deposits increased by 0.6 percent ($41.9 

billion) and foreign office deposits shrank by 8.0 

percent ($123.2 billion). Domestic time deposits 

decreased by 2.6 percent ($72.5 billion), while domestic 

savings and interest bearing checking accounts 

increased by 2.9 percent ($93.6 billion) and domestic 

non-interest bearing deposits increased by 1.5 percent 

($20.9 billion). From March 31, 2008, to March 31, 

2009, total domestic deposits increased by 6.6 percent. 

Noninterest bearing deposits rose by 19.8 percent 

($239.2 billion) and interest bearing deposits rose by 

3.9 percent ($230.2 billion).

Over the past year, the share of assets funded by domestic deposits increased from 52.9 percent to 55.7 percent. 

By contrast, over the same 12 months, Federal Home 

Loan Bank (FHLB) advances as a percent of total assets 

declined from 6.3 percent to 5.1 percent and the share 

of asset funding attributable to foreign office deposits 

decreased from 11.2 percent to 10.5 percent.

Estimated insured deposits at all FDIC-insured institutions (based on the $100,000 coverage limit) increased 

by 1.7 percent ($82.4 billion) during the first quarter of 

2009, down from a 4.5 percent increase during the 

previous quarter. From March 31, 2008, to March 31, 

2009, insured deposits increased by 8.9 percent ($393.3 

billion). For institutions existing on both December 31, 

2008, and March 31, 2009, insured deposits increased 

during the first quarter at 6,073 institutions (74 

percent), decreased at 2,125 institutions (26 percent), 

and remained unchanged at 35 institutions.

The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) decreased by 24.7 

percent ($4.3 billion) during the first quarter to $13,007 

million (unaudited). Accrued assessment income added 

$2.6 billion to the DIF during the quarter. Interest 

earned combined with realized gains and unrealized 

losses on securities added $17 million to the DIF. Operating and other expenses net of other revenue reduced 

the fund by $264 million. The reduction in the DIF was 

primarily due to a $6.6 billion increase in loss provisions for actual and anticipated insured institution 

failures.

The DIF’s reserve ratio equaled 0.27 percent on March 

31, 2009, down from 0.36 percent at December 31, 

2008, and 1.19 percent a year ago. The March 31, 2009, 

reserve ratio is the lowest reserve ratio for a combined 

bank and thrift insurance fund since March 31, 1993, 

when the reserve ratio was 0.06 percent.

Twenty-one FDIC-insured institutions with combined 

assets of $9.5 billion failed during the first quarter of 

2009, at an estimated cost to the DIF of $2.2 billion. 

Between March 31, 2008, and March 31, 2009, 44 

insured institutions with combined assets of $381.4 

billion failed, at an estimated cost to the DIF of 

$20.1 billion.

Final Rule Adopted Setting Assessment Rates and 

Modifying the Risk-Based Assessment System

On February 27, 2009, the FDIC Board of Directors 

(the “Board”) adopted a final rule effective April 1, 

2009, setting assessment rates and modifying the riskbased assessment system. The rule sets initial base 

assessment rates at 12 to 45 basis points. An institution’s total assessment rate may be less than or greater 

than its initial base assessment rate as a result of additional risk adjustments discussed below.

■ DIF Reserve Ratio Declines 9 Basis Points to 0.27 Percent

■ Twenty-One Institutions Fail During First Quarter

■ Insured Deposits Grow by 1.7 Percent

■ Final Rule Adopted Setting Assessment Rates and Modifying Risk-Based 

Assessment System

■ Temporary Coverage Limit to $250,000 Extended through the End of 2013

■ Final Rule Adopted for Special Assessment

INSURANCE FUND INDICATORS
FDIC Quarterly 15 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

Assessment Rates: The FDIC adopted new initial base 

assessment rates as of April 1, 2009, as follows:

Initial Base Assessment Rate

Annual Rates 

(in basis points)

Risk Category

I*

II III IV

Minimum Maximum

12 16 22 32 45

*Initial base rates that are not the minimum or maximum rate 

will vary between these rates

After applying all possible adjustments, minimum and 

maximum total base assessment rates for each risk category are as follows:

Total Base Assessment Rates

Risk

Category

I

Risk

Category

II

Risk

Category

III

Risk

Category

IV

Initial base 

assessment rate 12 – 16 22 32 45

Unsecured debt 

adjustment -5 – 0 -5 – 0 -5 – 0 -5 – 0

Secured liability 

adjustment 0 – 8 0 – 11 0 – 16 0 – 22.

Brokered deposit 

adjustment – 0 – 10 0 – 10 0 – 10

Total base 

assessment rate 7 – 24.0 17 – 43.0 27 – 58.0 40 – 

*All amounts for all risk categories are in basis points annually

Total base rates that are not the minimum or maximum rate 

will vary between these rates

Temporary Deposit Insurance Coverage to 

$250,000 Extended

On May 20, 2009, the President signed the Helping 

Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, which extends 

the temporary deposit insurance coverage limit increase 

to $250,000 (from the permanent limit of $100,000 for 

deposits other than retirement accounts) through the 

end of 2013. The legislation also eliminates the prohibition against the FDIC’s taking the temporary coverage 

increase into account when setting assessments. In addition, this new legislation increased the FDIC’s authority 

to borrow from the Treasury from $30 billion to $100 

billion and authorized a temporary increase until 

December 31, 2010, in the FDIC’s borrowing authority 

above $100 billion (but not to exceed $500 billion) 

based on a process that would require the concurrence 

of the FDIC’s Board, the Federal Reserve Board, and 

the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with 

the President.

Small Risk Category I Institutions and Large Risk 

Category I Institutions with No Long-Term Debt 

Issuer Rating

The FDIC introduced a new financial ratio into the 

financial ratios method (the adjusted brokered deposit 

ratio). The adjusted brokered deposit ratio affects institutions in Risk Category I (those that have CAMELS 

composite ratings of 1 or 2 and are well capitalized) 

whose brokered deposits are more than 10 percent of 

domestic deposits and whose total assets are more than 

40 percent greater than they were four years previously. 

The adjusted brokered deposit ratio excludes certain 

reciprocal brokered deposits. Brokered deposits that 

consist of balances swept into an insured institution are 

included in the adjusted brokered deposit ratio.

Large Risk Category I Institutions with Long-Term 

Debt Issuer Ratings

The FDIC revised the method for calculating the assessment rate for a large Risk Category I institution with a 

long-term debt issuer rating so that it equally weights 

the institution’s weighted average CAMELS component ratings, its long-term debt issuer ratings and the 

financial ratios method assessment rate. The final rule 

updates the uniform amount and the pricing multipliers 

for the weighted average CAMELS component ratings 

and financial ratios method. It also increases the maximum possible large bank adjustment from 0.5 basis 

points to 1.0 basis point.

Adjustments to Assessment Rates

The FDIC introduced three possible adjustments to an 

institution’s initial base assessment rate: (1) a decrease 

of up to 5 basis points for long-term unsecured debt, 

including senior unsecured debt (other than debt guaranteed under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee 

Program) and subordinated debt and, for small institutions, a portion of Tier 1 capital; (2) an increase not to 

exceed 50 percent of an institution’s assessment rate 

before the increase for secured liabilities in excess of 25 

percent of domestic deposits; and (3) for non–Risk 

Category I institutions, an increase not to exceed 10 

basis points for brokered deposits in excess of 10 percent 

of domestic deposits. The brokered deposit adjustment 

includes reciprocal brokered deposits, unlike the 

brokered deposit ratio used in the financial ratios 

method applicable to institutions in Risk Category I.
FDIC Quarterly 16 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

each institution’s assets minus Tier 1 capital whenever 

the FDIC estimates that the DIF reserve ratio will fall 

to a level that the Board believes would adversely affect 

public confidence or to a level that will be close to or 

below zero. Any additional special assessment would 

also be capped at 10 basis points of an institution’s 

assessment base for the corresponding quarter’s riskbased assessment. The authority to impose any additional special assessments under the final rule 

terminates January 1, 2010.

Author: Kevin Brown, Sr. Financial Analyst

Division of Insurance and Research

(202) 898-6817

Final Rule Adopted for Special Assessment

On May 22, 2009, the Board approved a final rule that 

imposes a 5 basis point special assessment as of June 30, 

2009. The special assessment will be levied on each 

insured depository institution’s assets minus its Tier 1 

capital as reported in its report of condition as of June 

30, 2009. The special assessment will be collected 

September 30, 2009, at the same time that the riskbased assessments for the second quarter of 2009 are 

collected. The special assessment for any institution will 

be capped at 10 basis points of the institution’s assessment base for the second quarter of 2009 risk-based 

assessment. The final rule also allows the Board to 

impose an additional special assessment of up to 5 basis 

points on all insured depository institutions based on 
FDIC Quarterly 17 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

DIF Reserve Ratios***

Percent of Insured Deposits

0.27 

1.26 1.25 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.21 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.19

1.01

0.76

0.36

9/05 3/06 9/06 3/07 9/07 3/08 9/08 3/09

Table I-B. Insurance Fund Balances and Selected Indicators

(dollar figures in millions)

Deposit Insurance Fund

1st 

Quarter 

2009*

4th 

Quarter 

2008

3rd 

Quarter 

2008

2nd 

Quarter 

2008

1st 

Quarter 

2008

4th 

Quarter 

2007

3rd 

Quarter 

2007

2nd 

Quarter 

2007

1st 

Quarter 

2007

4th 

Quarter 

2006

3rd 

Quarter 

2006

2nd 

Quarter 

2006

Beginning Fund Balance ................... $17,276 $34,588 $45,217 $52,843 $52,413 $51,754 $51,227 $50,745 $50,165 $49,992 $49,564 $49,193

Changes in Fund Balance:

Assessments earned ............................ 2,615 996 881 640 448 239 170 140 94 10 10 7

Interest earned on investment 

securities ....................................... 212 277 526 651 618 585 640 748 567 476 622 665

Realized gain on sale of investments .. 136 302 473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating expenses ............................. 266 290 249 256 238 262 243 248 239 248 237 242

Provision for insurance losses ............. 6,637 19,163 11,930 10,221 525 39 132 -3 -73 49 -50 -6

All other income, net of expenses ........ 2 15 16 1 0 -2 24 1 4 5 1 12

Unrealized gain/(loss) on 

available-for-sale securities .......... -331 551 -346 1,559 127 138 68 -162 81 -21 -18 -77

Total fund balance change ................... -4,269 -17,312 -10,629 -7,626 430 659 527 482 580 173 428 371

Ending Fund Balance ......................... 13,007 17,276 34,588 45,217 52,843 52,413 51,754 51,227 50,745 50,165 49,992 49,564

Percent change from four 

 quarters earlier ....................... -75.39 -67.04 -33.17 -11.73 4.13 4.48 3.52 3.36 3.15 3.

Reserve Ratio (%) ............................... 0.27 0.36 0.76 1.01 1.19 1.22 1.221.211.20 1.2

Estimated Insured Deposits**........... 4,831,473 4,749,036 4,545,288 4,467,771 4,438,141 4,292,221 4,242,607 4,235,044 4,245,266 4,153,786 4,100,013 4,040,353

Percent change from four 

 quarters earlier ....................... 8.86 10.64 7.13 5.50 4.54 3.33 3.48 482 608  .76 

Domestic Deposits ............................. 7,546,377 7,505,434 7,230,331 7,036,247 7,076,719 6,921,687 6,747,998 6,698,886 6,702,598 6,640,105 6,484,372 6,446,868

Percent change from four 

 quarters earlier ....................... 6.64 8.43 7.15 5.04 5.58 4.24 4.07 3.91 5.71 6.

Number of institutions reporting ..... 8,256 8,315 8,394 8,462 8,505 8,545 8,570 8,625 8,661 8,692 8,755 8,790 

Deposit Insurance Fund Balance 

and Insured Deposits***

($ Millions)

DIF 

Balance

DIF-Insured 

Deposits

6/05 48,023 3,757,728

9/05 48,373 3,830,950

12/05 48,597 3,890,941

3/06 49,193 4,001,906

6/06 49,564 4,040,353

9/06 49,992 4,100,013

12/06 50,165 4,153,786

3/07 50,745 4,245,266

6/07 51,227 4,235,044

9/07 51,754 4,242,607

12/07 52,413 4,292,221

3/08 52,843 4,438,141

6/08 45,217 4,467,771

9/08 34,588 4,545,288

12/08 17,276 4,749,036

3/09 13,007 4,831,473

Table II-B. Problem Institutions and Failed/Assisted Institutions

(dollar figures in millions) 2009  2008** ** 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004

Problem Institutions

Number of institutions ��������������������������������������������������������� 305 90 252 76 50 52 80

Total assets�������������������������������������������������������������������������� $220,047 $26,311 $159,405 $22,189 $8,265 $6,607 $28,250

Failed Institutions

Number of institutions ��������������������������������������������������������� 21 2 25 3 0 0 4

Total assets�������������������������������������������������������������������������� $9,498 $72 $371,945 $2,615 $0 $0 $170

Assisted Institutions*****

Number of institutions ��������������������������������������������������������� 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

Total assets�������������������������������������������������������������������������� $0 $0 $1,306,042 0 0 0 0

*For 2009, preliminary unaudited fund data, which are subject to change

**The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 directed the FDIC not to consider the temporary coverage increase to $250,000 in setting assessments. On May 20, 2009, the President signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, which extends the temporary deposit insurance coverage limit increase to $250,000 through the end of 2013 and eliminates the prohibition against the FDIC’s taking the temporary coverage increase into account when setting assessments. However, estimated insured deposits and the reserve ratios i

these tables reflect the general $100,000 coverage limit (for deposits other than retirement accounts) and the law in effect as of March 31, 2009

***Prior to 2006, amounts represent sum of separate BIF and SAIF amounts

 Through March 31

** ***Five institutions under the same holding company received assistance under a systemic risk determination
FDIC Quarterly 18 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Table III-B. Estimated FDIC-Insured Deposits by Type of Institution

(dollar figures in millions) 

March 31, 2009

Number of 

Institutions

Total 

Assets

Domestic 

Deposits*

Est. Insured 

Deposits

Commercial Banks and Savings Institutions

FDIC-Insured Commercial Banks ����������������������������������������������� 7,037 $12,006,853 $6,567,472 $4,048,434

 FDIC-Supervised ������������������������������������������������������������������� 4,660 1,996,091 1,490,576 1,069,223

 OCC-Supervised�������������������������������������������������������������������� 1,519 8,249,211 4,104,053 2,392,146

 Federal Reserve-Supervised������������������������������������������������� 858 1,761,551 972,842 587,064

FDIC-Insured Savings Institutions ���������������������������������������������� 1,209 1,534,777 970,894 778,346

 OTS-Supervised Savings Institutions������������������������������������ 799 1,225,806 753,075 607,502

 FDIC-Supervised State Savings Banks��������������������������������� 410 308,971 217,819 170,845

Total Commercial Banks and Savings Institutions ���������������������� 8,246 13,541,630 7,538,366 4,826,780

Other FDIC-Insured Institutions

U.S. Branches of Foreign Banks ������������������������������������������������� 10 53,807 8,011 4,6

Total FDIC-Insured Institutions���������������������������������������������������� . 8,256 13,595,438 7,546,377 4,831,4

* Excludes $1.42 trillion in foreign office deposits, which are uninsure

Table IV-B. Distribution of Institutions and Domestic Deposits Among Risk Categories

Quarter Ending December 31, 2008

(dollar figures in billions)

Risk Categor

Annual 

Rate in

Basis Points

Number of 

Institutions

Percent 

of Total 

Institutions

Domestic 

Deposits

Percent 

of Total 

Domestic 

Deposits

I - Minimum......................

I - Middle.............................

I - Middle...........................

I - Maximum....................

II....................

III.................

IV...............

Note: Institutions are categorized based on supervisory ratings, debt ratings, and financial data as of December 31, 2008

Rates do not reflect the application of assessment credits. See notes to users for further information on risk categories and rate
FDIC Quarterly 19 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

FDIC Responds to Market Disruptions with TLGP

The FDIC Board approved the Temporary Liquidity 

Guarantee Program (TLGP) on October 13, 2008, as 

major disruptions in credit markets blocked access to 

liquidity for financial institutions.1 The TLGP improved 

access to liquidity through two programs: by fully guaranteeing non-interest-bearing transaction deposit 

accounts above $250,000, regardless of dollar amount, 

until December 31, 2009; and by guaranteeing eligible 

senior unsecured debt issued by eligible institutions 

between October 14, 2008, and June 30, 2009. Under 

the final rule adopted on November 21, 2008, the FDIC 

guarantee would be in effect until the earlier of the 

maturity of the debt or June 30, 2012.

On March 17, 2009, the Board of Directors of the FDIC 

voted to extend the deadline for issuance to October 

31, 2009, and set the expiration date of the guarantee 

to the earlier of maturity of the debt or December 31, 

2012. The FDIC will impose a surcharge on debt issued 

with a maturity of one year or more beginning in the 

second quarter of 2009.2

All insured depository institutions are eligible to participate in the Transaction Account Guarantee Program. 

Institutions eligible for participation in the Debt Guarantee Program include insured depository institutions, 

U.S. bank holding companies, certain U.S. savings and 

loan holding companies, and other affiliates of insured 

depository institutions that the FDIC designates as 

eligible entities.

Program Funded by Industry Fees and Assessments

The TLGP does not rely on taxpayer funding or the 

Deposit Insurance Fund. Both components of the 

program are paid for by direct user fees. Institutions 

1

 The FDIC invoked the systemic risk exception pursuant to section 

141 of the Federal Deposit Improvement Act of 1991, 12 U.S.C 

1823(c)(4) on October 13, 2008. For further information on the TLGP, 

see http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/TLGP/index.html. 2

 See http://www.fdic.gov/news/board/Mar1709rule.pdf. 

participating in the Transaction Account Guarantee 

Program provide customers full coverage on non-interestbearing transaction accounts for an annual fee of 

10 basis points. Fees for participation in the Debt Guarantee Program depend on the maturity of debt issued 

and range from 50 to 100 basis points (annualized). A 

surcharge will be imposed on debt issued with a maturity of one year or greater after April 1, 2009. For debt 

that is not issued under the extension, that is, debt that 

is issued on or before June 30, 2009, and matures on or 

before June 30, 2012, surcharges will be 10 basis points 

(annualized) on debt issued by insured depository institutions and 20 basis points (annualized) on debt issued 

by other participating entities. For debt issued under the 

extension, that is, debt issued after June 30, 2009, or 

debt that matures after June 30, 2012, surcharges will be 

25 basis points (annualized) on debt issued by insured 

depository institutions and 50 basis points (annualized) 

on debt issued by other participating entities. As of 

March 31, 2008, a total of $6.9 billion in fees had been 

assessed under the Debt Guarantee Program.

A Majority of Eligible Entities Have Chosen to 

Participate in the TLGP

According to submissions received by the FDIC, more 

than 86 percent of FDIC-insured institutions have 

opted in to the Transaction Account Guarantee 

Program, and more than half of all eligible entities have 

elected to opt in to the Debt Guarantee Program. Lists 

of institutions that opted out of the guarantee programs 

are posted at http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/

TLGP/optout.html.

Insured Institutions Report Half a Million 

Transaction Accounts over $250,000

According to first quarter 2009 Call Reports, insured 

institutions reported 580,920 non-interest-bearing 

transaction accounts over $250,000, an increase of 

12 percent in number compared to fourth quarter 2008. 

These deposit accounts totaled $845 billion, of which 

$700 billion was guaranteed under the Transaction 

■ Non-Interest-Bearing Transaction Accounts Can Be Fully Guaranteed

■ Debt Guarantee Program Extended to October 31, 2009

■ More Than 500,000 Additional Transaction Accounts Receive Full Coverage

■ $336 Billion in Debt Outstanding in Program

TEMPORARY LIQUIDITY GUARANTEE PROGRAM
FDIC Quarterly 20 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Table I-C. Participation in Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program

March 31, 2009 Total Eligible Entities Number Opting In Percent Opting In

Transaction Account Guarantee Program

Depository Institutions with Assets <= $10 Billion�������������������������������� 8,139 7,032 86.4

Depository Institutions with Assets > $10 Billion ���������������������������������� 116 109 94.0

 Total Depository Institutions*���������������������������������������������������������� 8,255 7,141 86.6

Debt Guarantee Program

Depository Institutions with Assets <= $10 Billion�������������������������������� 8,139 4,399 54.0

Depository Institutions with Assets > $10 Billion ���������������������������������� 116 107 92.2

 Total Depository Institutions*���������������������������������������������������������� 8,255 4,506 54.6

Bank and Thrift Holding Companies and 

Non-Insured Affiliates���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6,360 3,596 56.5

 All Entities���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14,615 8,102 55.4

* Depository institutions include insured branches of foreign banks (IBAs)

debt outstanding at the end of the first quarter. Some 

banking groups issued FDIC-guaranteed debt at both the 

subsidiary and holding company level, but most guaranteed debt was issued by holding companies or nonbank 

affiliates of depository institutions. Bank and thrift holding companies and nonbank affiliates issued 82 percent 

of FDIC-guaranteed debt outstanding at year-end.

Debt outstanding at March 31 had longer terms at issuance, compared to debt outstanding at year-end. Only 

28 percent of debt outstanding matures in 180 days or 

less, compared to 49 percent at year-end, and 53 percent 

matures in two or more years after issuance, compared 

to 39 percent at December 31, 2008. Among types of 

debt instruments, almost two-thirds, 64 percent, was in 

medium-term notes, compared to 44 percent at yearend. The share of outstanding debt in commercial paper 

fell to 22 percent from 43 percent at year-end.

Author: Katherine Wyatt 

Chief, Financial Analysis Section

Division of Insurance and Research

(202) 898-6755

Account Guarantee Program. Over 6,500 FDIC-insured 

institutions reported non-interest-bearing transaction 

accounts over $250,000 in value.

Limits on Debt Issuance Based on Third Quarter 

2008 Balances

The amount of FDIC-guaranteed debt that can be 

issued by each eligible entity, or its “cap,” is based on 

the amount of its senior unsecured debt outstanding as 

of September 30, 2008, that matures on or before June 

30, 2009. Eligible entities may issue debt up to 125 

percent of that outstanding amount. The cap for FDICinsured institutions that had no outstanding short-term 

senior unsecured debt other than Fed funds is set at 2 

percent of liabilities as of September 30, 2008. Total 

debt outstanding at quarter end represented 44 percent 

of issuing entities’ total cap.

$336 Billion in FDIC-Guaranteed Debt Was 

Outstanding at March 31, 2009

Ninety-seven financial entities—66 insured depository 

institutions and 31 bank and thrift holding companies 

and nonbank affiliates—had $336 billion in guaranteed 

Table II-C. Cap on FDIC-Guaranteed Debt for Opt-In Entities

March 31, 2009

(dollar figures in millions)

Opt-In Entities with Senior Unsecure

Debt Outstanding at 9/30/2008

Opt-In Depository Institutions 

with no Senior Unsecure

Debt at 9/30/2008

Number 

 Debt Amount 

as of 

9/30/2008 Initial Cap Number

2% Liabilities 

as of 

9/30/2008

Total 

Entities

Total Initial 

Cap 

Depository Institutions with Assets 

<= $10 Billion*������������������������������������ 120 $3,538 $4,422 4,279 $33,096 4,399 $37,518

Depository Institutions with Assets 

> $10 Billion*�������������������������������������� 44 295,879 369,849 63 29,939 107 399,787

Bank and Thrift Holding 

Companies, Non-Insured Affiliates ��������� 88 398,008 497,511 3,508 N/A 3,596 497,511

Total��������������������������������������������������������� 252 697,425 871,781 7,852 63,035 8,102 934,816

* Depository institutions include insured branches of foreign banks (IBAs) N/A - Not applicable
FDIC Quarterly 21 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

Table V-C. Fees Assessed under TLGP Debt Program

(dollar figures in millions)

Total Fees 

Assessed

Fourth Quarter 2008���������������������������������������������� $3,437

First Quarter 2009 ������������������������������������������������� 3,433

Total����������������������������������������������������������������� $6,870

Table VI-C. Term at Issuance of Debt Instruments Outstanding

March 31, 2009

(dollar figures in millions)

Commercial 

Paper

Interbank

Eurodollar

Deposits

Medium 

Term Notes

Other 

Interbank 

Deposits

Other 

Senior

Unsecured

Debt

Other 

Term Note All Debt

Share 

by Term

Term at Issuance

90 days or less�������������������������������������� $32,432 $125 $0 $161 $0 $2,740 $35,458 10.5%

91 - 180 days����������������������������������������� 40,016 36 0 764 5,630 10,834 57,280 17.0%

181 - 364 days��������������������������������������� 2,663 28 3,400 723 0 4,103 10,917 3.2%

1 - 2 years ��������������������������������������������� 0 3 50,341 28 0 4,792 55,164 16.4%

Over 2 - 3 years ������������������������������������ 0 0 67,547 0 3,345 5,991 76,882 22.9%

Over 3 years������������������������������������������ 1 0 95,196 4 3,713 1,687 100,601 29.9%

Total ������������������������������������������������ 75,112 191 216,484 1,681 12,688 30,147 336,302

Share of Total���������������������������������������� 22.3% 0.1% 64.4% 0.5% 3.8% 9.0%

Table IV-C. Debt Issuance under Guarantee Program 

March 31, 2009

(dollar figures in millions) Number Debt Outstanding Cap

Debt Outstanding 

Share of Ca

Insured Depository Institutions

Assets <= $10 Billion ������������������������������������������������������� 46 $1,425 $3,079 46.3

Assets > $10 Billion ��������������������������������������������������������� 20 58,768 297,058 19.8

Bank and Thrift Holding Companies,

Non-Insured Affiliates ������������������������������������������������������������ 31 276,109 468,355 59.0

All Issuers����������������������������������������������������������������������� 97 336,302 768,492 43.8

Table III-C. Transaction Account Guarantee Program

(dollar figures in millions) December 31, 

2008

March 31, 

2009

% Change 

08Q4-09Q1

Number of Non-Interest-Bearing Transaction Accounts over $250,000��������� 518,828 580,920 12.0

Amount in Non-Interest-Bearing Transaction Accounts over $250,000���������� $807,679 $845,227 4.6

Amount Guaranteed ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� $677,972 $699,997 3.2
FDIC Quarterly 22 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

All asset and liability figures used in calculating performance 

ratios represent average amounts for the period (beginning-ofperiod amount plus end-of-period amount plus any interim 

periods, divided by the total number of periods). For “poolingof-interest” mergers, the assets of the acquired institution(s) 

are included in average assets since the year-to-date income 

includes the results of all merged institutions. No adjustments 

are made for “purchase accounting” mergers. Growth rates 

represent the percentage change over a 12-month period in 

totals for institutions in the base period to totals for institutions in the current period.

All data are collected and presented based on the location of 

each reporting institution’s main office. Reported data may 

include assets and liabilities located outside of the reporting 

institution’s home state. In addition, institutions may relocate 

across state lines or change their charters, resulting in an 

inter-regional or inter-industry migration, e.g., institutions 

can move their home offices between regions, and savings 

institutions can convert to commercial banks or commercial 

banks may convert to savings institutions.

ACCOUNTING CHANGES

Other-Than-Temporary Impairment

When the fair value of an investment in a debt or equity 

security is less than its cost basis, the impairment is either 

temporary or other-than-temporary. To determine whether 

the impairment is other-than-temporary, an institution must 

apply other pertinent guidance such as paragraph 16 of FASB 

Statement No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt 

and Equity Securities; FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 115-1 

and FAS 124-1, The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary 

Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments; FSP 

FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of 

Other-Than-Temporary Impairments; paragraph 6 of 

Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18, The Equity 

Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock; 

Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 99-20, 

Recognition of Interest Income and Impairment on Purchased 

Beneficial Interests and Beneficial Interests That Continue to Be 

Held by a Transferor in Securitized Financial Assets; and FSP 

EITF 99-20-1, Amendments to the Impairment Guidance of 

EITF Issue No. 99-20.

Under FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2 issued on April 9, 

2009, if the present value of cash flows expected to be collected on a debt security is less than its amortized cost basis, a 

credit loss exists. In this situation, if an institution does not 

intend to sell the security and it is not more likely than not 

that the institution will be required to sell the debt security 

before recovery of its amortized cost basis less any currentperiod credit loss, an other-than-temporary impairment has 

occurred. The amount of the total other-than-temporary 

impairment related to the credit loss must be recognized in 

earnings, but the amount of the total impairment related to 

other factors must be recognized in other comprehensive 

income, net of applicable taxes. Although the debt security 

would be written down to its fair value, its new amortized cost 

basis is the previous amortized cost basis less the other-thantemporary impairment recognized in earnings. In addition, if 

an institution intends to sell a debt security whose fair value 

is less than its amortized costs basis or it is more likely than 

not that the institution will be required to sell the debt security before recovery of its amortized cost basis, an other-thanNotes to Users

This publication contains financial data and other information for depository institutions insured by the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC). These notes are an integral 

part of this publication and provide information regarding the 

comparability of source data and reporting differences over 

time.

Tables I-A through VIII-A.

The information presented in Tables I-A through V-A of the 

FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile is aggregated for all FDICinsured institutions, both commercial banks and savings institutions. Tables VI-A (Derivatives) and VII-A (Servicing, 

Securitization, and Asset Sales Activities) aggregate information only for insured commercial banks and state-chartered 

savings banks that file quarterly Call Reports. Table VIII-A 

(Trust Services) aggregates Trust asset and income information collected annually from all FDIC-insured institutions. 

Some tables are arrayed by groups of FDIC-insured institutions based on predominant types of asset concentration, 

while other tables aggregate institutions by asset size and 

geographic region. Quarterly and full-year data are provided 

for selected indicators, including aggregate condition and 

income data, performance ratios, condition ratios, and structural changes, as well as past due, noncurrent, and charge-off 

information for loans outstanding and other assets.

Tables I-B through IV-B.

A separate set of tables (Tables I-B through IV-B) provides 

comparative quarterly data related to the Deposit Insurance 

Fund (DIF), problem institutions, failed/assisted institutions, 

estimated FDIC-insured deposits, as well as assessment rate 

information. Depository institutions that are not insured by 

the FDIC through the DIF are not included in the FDIC 

Quarterly Banking Profile. U.S. branches of institutions headquartered in foreign countries and non-deposit trust companies are not included unless otherwise indicated. Efforts are 

made to obtain financial reports for all active institutions. 

However, in some cases, final financial reports are not available for institutions that have closed or converted their 

charters.

DATA SOURCES

The financial information appearing in this publication is 

obtained primarily from the Federal Financial Institutions 

Examination Council (FFIEC) Consolidated Reports of 

Condition and Income (Call Reports) and the OTS Thrift 

Financial Reports submitted by all FDIC-insured depository 

institutions. This information is stored on and retrieved from 

the FDIC’s Research Information System (RIS) data base.

COMPUTATION METHODOLOGY

Parent institutions are required to file consolidated reports, 

while their subsidiary financial institutions are still required 

to file separate reports. Data from subsidiary institution 

reports are included in the Quarterly Banking Profile tables, 

which can lead to double-counting. No adjustments are made 

for any double-counting of subsidiary data. Additionally, certain adjustments are made to the OTS Thrift Financial Reports

to provide closer conformance with the reporting and 

accounting requirements of the FFIEC Call Reports.
FDIC Quarterly 23 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

take effect in 2009. Beginning in March 2009, Institution 

equity capital and Noncontrolling interests are separately 

reported in arriving at Total equity capital.

FASB Statement No. 157 Fair Value Measurements issued in 

September 2006 and FASB Statement No. 159 The Fair Value 

Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities issued in 

February 2007—both are effective in 2008 with early adoption 

permitted in 2007. FAS 157 defines fair value and establishes 

a framework for developing fair value estimates for the fair 

value measurements that are already required or permitted 

under other standards. FASB FSP 157-4, issued in April 2009, 

provides additional guidance for estimating fair value in 

accordance with FAS 157 when the volume and level of 

activity for the asset or liability have significantly decreased. 

The FSP also includes guidance on identifying circumstances 

that indicate a transaction is not orderly. The FSP is effective 

for interim and annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 

2009, with early adoption permitted for periods ending after 

March 15, 2009.

Fair value continues to be used for derivatives, trading securities, and available-for-sale securities. Changes in fair value go 

through earnings for trading securities and most derivatives. 

Changes in the fair value of available-for-sale securities are 

reported in other comprehensive income. Available-for-sale 

securities and held-to-maturity debt securities are written 

down to fair value if impairment is other than temporary and 

loans held for sale are reported at the lower of cost or fair 

value.

FAS 159 allows institutions to report certain financial assets 

and liabilities at fair value with subsequent changes in fair 

value included in earnings. In general, an institution may 

elect the fair value option for an eligible financial asset or 

liability when it first recognizes the instrument on its balance 

sheet or enters into an eligible firm commitment.

FASB Statement No. 158 Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit 

Pension and Other Postretirement Plans—issued in September 

2006, requires a bank to recognize in 2007, and subsequently, 

the funded status of its postretirement plans on its balance 

sheet. An overfunded plan is recognized as an asset and an 

underfunded plan is recognized as a liability. An adjustment is 

made to equity as accumulated other comprehensive income 

(AOCI) upon application of FAS 158, and AOCI is adjusted 

in subsequent periods as net periodic benefit costs are recognized in earnings.

FASB Statement No. 156 Accounting for Servicing of Financial 

Assets—issued in March 2006 and effective in 2007, requires 

all separately recognized servicing assets and liabilities to be 

initially measured at fair value and allows a bank the option 

to subsequently adjust that value by periodic revaluation and 

recognition of earnings or by periodic amortization to 

earnings.

FASB Statement No. 155 Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial 

Instruments—issued in February 2006, requires bifurcation of 

certain derivatives embedded in interests in securitized financial assets and permits fair value measurement (i.e., a fair 

value option) for any hybrid financial instrument that contains an embedded derivative that would otherwise require 

bifurcation under FASB Statement No. 133, Accounting for 

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (FAS 133). In 

addition, FAS 155 clarifies which interest-only and principalonly strips are not subject to FAS 133.

temporary impairment has occurred and the entire difference 

between the security’s amortized cost basis and its fair value 

must be recognized in earnings.

For any debt security held at the beginning of the interim 

period in which FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2 is adopted 

for which an other-than-temporary impairment loss has been 

previously recognized, if an institution does not intend to sell 

such a debt security and it is not more likely than not that 

the institution will be required to sell the debt security before 

recovery of its amortized cost basis, the institution should recognize the cumulative effect of initially applying the FSP as 

an adjustment to the interim period’s opening balance of 

retained earnings, net of applicable taxes, with a corresponding adjustment to accumulated other comprehensive income. 

The cumulative effect on retained earnings must be calculated by comparing the present value of the cash flows expected 

to be collected on the debt security with the security’s amortized cost basis as of the beginning of the interim period of 

adoption.

FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2 is effective for interim and 

annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009. Early 

adoption of this FSP is permitted for periods ending after 

March 15, 2009, if certain conditions are met. Institutions are 

expected to adopt FSP FAS 115-2 and 124-2 for regulatory 

reporting purposes in accordance with the FSP’s effective date.

Extended Net Operating Loss Carryback Period 

for Small Businesses

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

which was enacted on February 17, 2009, permits qualifying 

small businesses, including FDIC-insured institutions, to elect 

a net operating loss carryback period of three, four, or five 

years instead of the usual carryback period of two years for 

any tax year ending in 2008 or, at the small business’s election, any tax year beginning in 2008. Under generally accepted accounting principles, institutions may not record the 

effect of this tax change in their balance sheets and income 

statements for financial and regulatory reporting purposes 

until the period in which the law was enacted, i.e., the first 

quarter of 2009.

Business Combinations and Noncontrolling (Minority) 

Interests

In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 141 

(Revised), Business Combinations (FAS 141(R)), and 

Statement No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated 

Financial Statements (FAS 160). Under FAS 141(R), all business combinations, including combinations of mutual entities, 

are to be accounted for by applying the acquisition method. 

FAS 160 defines a noncontrolling interest, also called a 

minority interest, as the portion of equity in an institution’s 

subsidiary not attributable, directly or indirectly, to the parent 

institution. FAS 160 requires an institution to clearly present 

in its consolidated financial statements the equity ownership 

in and results of its subsidiaries that are attributable to the 

noncontrolling ownership interests in these subsidiaries. FAS 

141(R) applies prospectively to business combinations for 

which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the 

first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 

15, 2008. Similarly, FAS 160 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Thus, for institutions 

with calendar year fiscal years, these two accounting standards 
FDIC Quarterly 24 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

FASB Statement No. 123 (Revised 2004) and Share-Based 

Payments—refer to previously published Quarterly Banking 

Profile notes: http://www2.fdic.gov/qbp/2008dec/qbpnot.html

FASB Statement No. 133 Accounting for Derivative Instruments and 

Hedging Activities—refer to previously published Quarterly 

Banking Profile notes: http://www2.fdic.gov/qbp/2008dec/

qbpnot.html

DEFINITIONS (in alphabetical order)

All other assets—total cash, balances due from depository 

institutions, premises, fixed assets, direct investments in real 

estate, investment in unconsolidated subsidiaries, customers’ 

liability on acceptances outstanding, assets held in trading 

accounts, federal funds sold, securities purchased with agreements to resell, fair market value of derivatives, and other 

assets.

All other liabilities—bank’s liability on acceptances, limited-life 

preferred stock, allowance for estimated off-balance-sheet 

credit losses, fair market value of derivatives, and other 

liabilities.

Assessment base—assessable deposits consist of DIF deposits 

(deposits insured by the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund) in 

banks’ domestic offices with certain adjustments).

Assets securitized and sold—total outstanding principal balance 

of assets securitized and sold with servicing retained or other 

seller-provided credit enhancements.

Capital Purchase Program (CPP)—As announced in October 

2008 under the TARP, the Treasury Department purchase of 

noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related warrants 

that is treated as Tier 1 capital for regulatory capital purposes 

is included in “Total equity capital.” Such warrants to purchase common stock or noncumulative preferred stock issued 

by publicly traded banks are reflected as well in “Surplus.” 

Warrants to purchase common stock or noncumulative preferred stock of not-publicly-traded bank stock classified in a 

bank’s balance sheet as “Other liabilities.”

Construction and development loans—includes loans for all 

property types under construction, as well as loans for land 

acquisition and development.

Core capital—common equity capital plus noncumulative perpetual preferred stock plus minority interest in consolidated 

subsidiaries, less goodwill and other ineligible intangible 

assets. The amount of eligible intangibles (including servicing 

rights) included in core capital is limited in accordance with 

supervisory capital regulations.

Cost of funding earning assets—total interest expense paid on 

deposits and other borrowed money as a percentage of average 

earning assets.

Credit enhancements—techniques whereby a company attempts 

to reduce the credit risk of its obligations. Credit enhancement may be provided by a third party (external credit 

enhancement) or by the originator (internal credit enhancement), and more than one type of enhancement may be 

associated with a given issuance.

Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF)—The Bank (BIF) and Savings 

Association (SAIF) Insurance Funds were merged in 2006 by 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act to form the DIF.

Derivatives notional amount—The notional, or contractual, 

amounts of derivatives represent the level of involvement in 

Purchased Impaired Loans and Debt Securities—Statement of 

Position 03-3, Accounting for Certain Loans or Debt Securities 

Acquired in a Transfer. The SOP applies to loans and debt 

securities acquired in fiscal years beginning after December 

15, 2004. In general, this Statement of Position applies to 

“purchased impaired loans and debt securities” (i.e., loans and 

debt securities that a bank has purchased, including those 

acquired in a purchase business combination, when it is probable, at the purchase date, that the bank will be unable to 

collect all contractually required payments receivable). Banks 

must follow Statement of Position 03-3 for Call Report purposes. The SOP does not apply to the loans that a bank has 

originated, prohibits “carrying over” or creation of valuation 

allowances in the initial accounting, and any subsequent valuation allowances reflect only those losses incurred by the 

investor after acquisition.

GNMA Buy-back Option—If an issuer of GNMA securities has 

the option to buy back the loans that collateralize the GNMA 

securities, when certain delinquency criteria are met, FASB 

Statement No. 140 requires that loans with this buy-back 

option must be brought back on the issuer’s books as assets. 

The rebooking of GNMA loans is required regardless of 

whether the issuer intends to exercise the buy-back option. 

The banking agencies clarified in May 2005 that all GNMA 

loans that are rebooked because of delinquency should be 

reported as past due according to their contractual terms.

FASB Interpretation No. 46—The FASB issued Interpretation 

No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, in January 

2003 and revised it in December 2003. Generally, banks with 

variable interests in variable interest entities created after 

December 31, 2003, must consolidate them. The timing of 

consolidation varies with certain situations with application 

as late as 2005. The assets and liabilities of a consolidated 

variable interest entity are reported on a line-by-line basis 

according to the asset and liability categories shown on the 

bank’s balance sheet, as well as related income items. Most 

small banks are unlikely to have any “variable interests” in 

variable interest entities.

FASB Interpretation No. 48 on Uncertain Tax Positions—FASB 

Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income 

Taxes (FIN 48), was issued in June 2006 as an interpretation 

of FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. 

Under FIN 48, the term “tax position” refers to “a position 

in a previously filed tax return or a position expected to be 

taken in a future tax return that is reflected in measuring 

current or deferred income tax assets and liabilities.” FIN 48 

further states that a “tax position can result in a permanent 

reduction of income taxes payable, a deferral of income taxes 

otherwise currently payable to future years, or a change in the 

expected realizability of deferred tax assets.” FIN 48 was originally issued effective for fiscal years beginning after December 

15, 2006. Banks must adopt FIN 48 for Call Report purposes 

in accordance with the interpretation’s effective date except 

as follows. On December 31, 2008, the FASB decided to defer 

the effective date of FIN 48 for eligible nonpublic enterprises 

and to require those enterprises to adopt FIN 48 for annual 

periods beginning after December 15, 2008. A nonpublic 

enterprise under certain conditions is eligible for deferral, 

even if it opted to issue interim or quarterly financial information in 2007 under earlier guidance that reflected the 

adoption of FIN 48.
FDIC Quarterly 25 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

FHLB advances—all borrowings by FDIC insured institutions 

from the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLB), as reported by Call Report filers and by TFR filers.

Goodwill and other intangibles—intangible assets include 

servicing rights, purchased credit card relationships, and other 

identifiable intangible assets. Goodwill is the excess of the 

purchase price over the fair market value of the net assets 

acquired, less subsequent impairment adjustments. Other 

intangible assets are recorded at fair value, less subsequent 

quarterly amortization and impairment adjustments.

Loans secured by real estate—includes home equity loans, 

junior liens secured by 1–4 family residential properties, and 

all other loans secured by real estate.

Loans to individuals—includes outstanding credit card balances 

and other secured and unsecured consumer loans.

Long-term assets (5+ years)—loans and debt securities with 

remaining maturities or repricing intervals of over five years.

Maximum credit exposure—the maximum contractual credit 

exposure remaining under recourse arrangements and other 

seller-provided credit enhancements provided by the reporting bank to securitizations.

Mortgage-backed securities—certificates of participation in 

pools of residential mortgages and collateralized mortgage 

obligations issued or guaranteed by government-sponsored or 

private enterprises. Also, see “Securities,” below.

Net charge-offs—total loans and leases charged off (removed 

from balance sheet because of uncollectibility), less amounts 

recovered on loans and leases previously charged off.

Net interest margin—the difference between interest and dividends earned on interest-bearing assets and interest paid to 

depositors and other creditors, expressed as a percentage of 

average earning assets. No adjustments are made for interest 

income that is tax exempt.

Net loans to total assets—loans and lease financing receivables, net of unearned income, allowance and reserves, as a 

percent of total assets on a consolidated basis.

Net operating income—income excluding discretionary transactions such as gains (or losses) on the sale of investment securities and extraordinary items. Income taxes subtracted from 

operating income have been adjusted to exclude the portion 

applicable to securities gains (or losses).

Noncurrent assets—the sum of loans, leases, debt securities, 

and other assets that are 90 days or more past due, or in nonaccrual status.

Noncurrent loans & leases—the sum of loans and leases 90 days 

or more past due, and loans and leases in nonaccrual status.

Number of institutions reporting—the number of institutions 

that actually filed a financial report.

Other borrowed funds—federal funds purchased, securities sold 

with agreements to repurchase, demand notes issued to the 

U.S. Treasury, FHLB advances, other borrowed money, 

mortgage indebtedness, obligations under capitalized leases 

and trading liabilities, less revaluation losses on assets held in 

trading accounts.

Other real estate owned—primarily foreclosed property. Direct 

and indirect investments in real estate ventures are excluded. 

The amount is reflected net of valuation allowances. For 

institutions that file a Thrift Financial Report (TFR), the 

the types of derivatives transactions and are not a quantification of market risk or credit risk. Notional amounts represent 

the amounts used to calculate contractual cash flows to be 

exchanged.

Derivatives credit equivalent amount—the fair value of the 

derivative plus an additional amount for potential future 

credit exposure based on the notional amount, the remaining 

maturity and type of the contract.

Derivatives transaction types:

Futures and forward contracts—contracts in which the buyer 

agrees to purchase and the seller agrees to sell, at a specified 

future date, a specific quantity of an underlying variable or 

index at a specified price or yield. These contracts exist for 

a variety of variables or indices (traditional agricultural or 

physical commodities, as well as currencies and interest 

rates). Futures contracts are standardized and are traded on 

organized exchanges which set limits on counterparty credit 

exposure. Forward contracts do not have standardized terms 

and are traded over the counter.

Option contracts—contracts in which the buyer acquires the 

right to buy from or sell to another party some specified 

amount of an underlying variable or index at a stated price 

(strike price) during a period or on a specified future date, 

in return for compensation (such as a fee or premium). The 

seller is obligated to purchase or sell the variable or index at 

the discretion of the buyer of the contract.

Swaps—obligations between two parties to exchange a 

series of cash flows at periodic intervals (settlement dates), 

for a specified period. The cash flows of a swap are either 

fixed, or determined for each settlement date by multiplying 

the quantity (notional principal) of the underlying variable 

or index by specified reference rates or prices. Except for 

currency swaps, the notional principal is used to calculate 

each payment but is not exchanged.

Derivatives underlying risk exposure—the potential exposure 

characterized by the level of banks’ concentration in particular underlying instruments, in general. Exposure can result 

from market risk, credit risk, and operational risk, as well as, 

interest rate risk.

Domestic deposits to total assets—total domestic office deposits 

as a percent of total assets on a consolidated basis.

Earning assets—all loans and other investments that earn 

interest or dividend income.

Efficiency ratio—Noninterest expense less amortization of 

intangible assets as a percent of net interest income plus noninterest income. This ratio measures the proportion of net 

operating revenues that are absorbed by overhead expenses, 

so that a lower value indicates greater efficiency.

Estimated insured deposits—in general, insured deposits are 

total domestic deposits minus estimated uninsured deposits. 

Beginning March 31, 2008, for institutions that file Call 

reports, insured deposits are total assessable deposits minus 

estimated uninsured deposits.

Failed/assisted institutions—an institution fails when regulators 

take control of the institution, placing the assets and liabilities into a bridge bank, conservatorship, receivership, or 

another healthy institution. This action may require the 

FDIC to provide funds to cover losses. An institution is 

defined as “assisted” when the institution remains open and 

receives some insurance funds in order to continue operating.
FDIC Quarterly 26 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

of 1 or 2; Supervisory Group B generally includes institutions 

with a CAMELS composite rating of 3; and Supervisory 

Group C generally includes institutions with CAMELS composite ratings of 4 or 5. For purposes of risk-based assessment 

capital groups, undercapitalized includes institutions that are 

significantly or critically undercapitalized.

Capital Group A B C

1. Well Capitalized

2. Adequately Capitalized

3. Undercapitalized

I

12–14 bps II

17 bps

IV

50 bps

III

35 bps

III

35 bps

Supervisory Group

These rates represent a uniform increase of 7 basis points 

(annual rate) over the rates in effect for the fourth quarter of 

2008. The FDIC has modified the risk-based assessment system effective April 1, 2009 and set new rates for the second 

quarter or 2009.

For the first quarter of 2009, before these modifications take 

effect, the assessment rate for most institutions in Risk 

Category I will be based on a combination of financial ratios 

and CAMELS component ratings.

For large institutions in Risk Category I (generally those with 

at least $10 billion in assets) that have long-term debt issuer 

ratings, assessment rates will be determined by weighting 

CAMELS component ratings 50 percent and long-term debt 

issuer ratings 50 percent. For all large Risk Category I institutions, additional risk factors will be considered to determine 

whether assessment rates should be adjusted. This additional 

information includes market data, financial performance measures, considerations of the ability of an institution to withstand financial stress, and loss severity indicators. Any 

adjustment will be limited to no more than 1⁄2 basis point.

Beginning in 2007, each institution has been assigned a riskbased rate for a quarterly assessment period near the end of 

the quarter following the assessment period. Payment is generally due on the 30th day of the last month of the quarter 

following the assessment period. Supervisory rating changes 

are effective for assessment purposes as of the examination 

transmittal date. For institutions with long-term debt issuer 

ratings, changes in ratings are effective for assessment purposes as of the date the change was announced.

Risk-weighted assets—assets adjusted for risk-based capital 

definitions which include on-balance-sheet as well as offbalance-sheet items multiplied by risk-weights that range 

from zero to 200 percent. A conversion factor is used to assign 

a balance sheet equivalent amount for selected off-balancesheet accounts.

Securities—excludes securities held in trading accounts. Banks’ 

securities portfolios consist of securities designated as “heldto-maturity,” which are reported at amortized cost (book 

value), and securities designated as “available-for-sale,” 

reported at fair (market) value.

Securities gains (losses)—realized gains (losses) on held-tomaturity and available-for-sale securities, before adjustments 

valuation allowance subtracted also includes allowances for 

other repossessed assets. Also, for TFR filers the components 

of other real estate owned are reported gross of valuation 

allowances.

Percent of institutions with earnings gains—the percent of institutions that increased their net income (or decreased their 

losses) compared to the same period a year earlier.

“Problem” institutions—federal regulators assign a composite 

rating to each financial institution, based upon an evaluation 

of financial and operational criteria. The rating is based on a 

scale of 1 to 5 in ascending order of supervisory concern. 

“Problem” institutions are those institutions with financial, 

operational, or managerial weaknesses that threaten their 

continued financial viability. Depending upon the degree of 

risk and supervisory concern, they are rated either a “4” or 

“5.” The number and assets of “problem” institutions are 

based on FDIC composite ratings. Prior to March 31, 2008, 

for institutions whose primary federal regulator was the OTS, 

the OTS composite rating was used.

Recourse—an arrangement in which a bank retains, in form or 

in substance, any credit risk directly or indirectly associated 

with an asset it has sold (in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles) that exceeds a pro rata share of the 

bank’s claim on the asset. If a bank has no claim on an asset 

it has sold, then the retention of any credit risk is recourse.

Reserves for losses—the allowance for loan and lease losses on 

a consolidated basis.

Restructured loans and leases—loan and lease financing receivables with terms restructured from the original contract. 

Excludes restructured loans and leases that are not in compliance with the modified terms.

Retained earnings—net income less cash dividends on common 

and preferred stock for the reporting period.

Return on assets—net income (including gains or losses on 

securities and extraordinary items) as a percentage of average 

total assets. The basic yardstick of bank profitability.

Return on equity—net income (including gains or losses on 

securities and extraordinary items) as a percentage of average 

total equity capital.

Risk-based capital groups—definition:

(Percent)

Total 

Risk-Based 

Capital*

Tier 1

Risk-Based 

Capital*

Tier 1 

Leverage

Tangible

Equity

Well-Capitalized ≥10 and ≥6 and ≥5 –

Adequately 

capitalized ≥8 and ≥4 and ≥4 –

Undercapitalized ≥6 and ≥3 and ≥3 –

Significantly 

undercapitalized <6 or <3 or <3 and >2

Critically 

undercapitalized – – – ≤2

*As a percentage of risk-weighted assets.

Risk Categories and Assessment Rate Schedule—The current risk 

categories became effective January 1, 2007. Capital ratios 

and supervisory ratings distinguish one risk category from 

another. The following table shows the relationship of risk 

categories (I, II, III, IV) to capital and supervisory groups as 

well as the assessment rates (in basis points) for each risk category for the first quarter of 2007. Supervisory Group A generally includes institutions with CAMELS composite ratings 
FDIC Quarterly 27 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Quarterly Banking Profile

Trust assets—market value, or other reasonably available value 

of fiduciary and related assets, to include marketable securities, 

and other financial and physical assets. Common physical 

assets held in fiduciary accounts include real estate, equipment, collectibles, and household goods. Such fiduciary assets 

are not included in the assets of the financial institution.

Unearned income & contra accounts—unearned income for Call 

Report filers only.

Unused loan commitments—includes credit card lines, home 

equity lines, commitments to make loans for construction, 

loans secured by commercial real estate, and unused commitments to originate or purchase loans. (Excluded are commitments after June 2003 for originated mortgage loans held for 

sale, which are accounted for as derivatives on the balance 

sheet.)

Volatile liabilities—the sum of large-denomination time deposits, foreign-office deposits, federal funds purchased, securities 

sold under agreements to repurchase, and other borrowings.

Yield on earning assets—total interest, dividend, and fee 

income earned on loans and investments as a percentage of 

average earning assets.

for income taxes. Thrift Financial Report (TFR) filers also 

include gains (losses) on the sales of assets held for sale.

Seller’s interest in institution’s own securitizations—the reporting 

bank’s ownership interest in loans and other assets that have 

been securitized, except an interest that is a form of recourse 

or other seller-provided credit enhancement. Seller’s interests 

differ from the securities issued to investors by the securitization structure. The principal amount of a seller’s interest is 

generally equal to the total principal amount of the pool of 

assets included in the securitization structure less the principal amount of those assets attributable to investors, i.e., in the 

form of securities issued to investors.

Subchapter S Corporation—a Subchapter S corporation is treated as a pass-through entity, similar to a partnership, for federal income tax purposes. It is generally not subject to any 

federal income taxes at the corporate level. This can have the 

effect of reducing institutions’ reported taxes and increasing 

their after-tax earnings.

Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) was approved 

by the FDIC Board on October 13, 2008. The TLGP was 

designed to help relieve the crisis in the credit markets by 

giving banks access to liquidity during a time of global financial distress. Participation in the TLGP is voluntary. The 

TLGP has two components:

Transaction Account Guarantee Program provides a full guarantee of non-interest-bearing deposit transaction accounts 

above $250,000, at depository institutions that elected to 

participate in the program. The guarantee is in effect until 

December 31, 2009.

Debt Guarantee Program provides a full guarantee of senior 

unsecured debt1 issued by eligible institutions between 

October 14, 2008, and June 30, 2009, and maturing on or 

before June 30, 2012. Institutions eligible for participation 

in the debt guarantee program include insured depository 

institutions, U.S. bank holding companies, certain U.S. 

savings and loan holding companies, and other affiliates of 

an insured depository institution that the FDIC designates 

as eligible entities.

1

 Senior unsecured debt generally includes term Federal funds 

purchased, promissory notes, commercial paper, unsubordinated 

unsecured notes, certificates of deposit (CDs) standing to the credit of 

a bank, and U.S. dollar denominated bank deposits owed to an insured 

depository institution.

FDIC Quarterly 29 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

The FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program began in 

February 2008. The pilot is a two-year case study 

designed to illustrate how banks can profitably offer 

affordable small-dollar loans as an alternative to highcost credit products, such as payday loans and fee-based 

overdraft protection.1 This article summarizes results 

from the first four quarters of the pilot, highlights 

factors that have contributed to the success of participating banks’ programs, and presents the most common 

small-dollar loan business models through case study 

examples.

During the first four quarters of the pilot, participating 

banks originated a total of 16,000 loans with an aggregate principal balance of $18.5 million. Bankers cited a 

number of common factors that contributed to the 

success of their loan programs, including strong senior 

management and board support; an engaged and 

empowered “champion” in charge of the program; proximity to large populations of consumers with demand 

for small-dollar loans; and, in some rural markets, 

limited competition.

Only a few participating banks have indicated that 

short-term profitability is the primary goal for their 

small-dollar loan programs. Rather, most pilot banks are 

using the small-dollar loan product as a cornerstone for 

long-term relationship-building that also creates goodwill in the community. Moreover, a few banks’ business 

models focus exclusively on building goodwill and 

generating an opportunity for positive Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration.2 Regardless of 

business model, all of the banks have indicated that 

small-dollar lending is something they believe they 

should be doing to serve their communities.

1

 See “An Introduction to the FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program,” 

FDIC Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 3 (2008), http://www.fdic.gov/bank/

analytical/quarterly/2008_vol2_3/2008_Quarterly_Vol2No3.html, 

which summarizes the key parameters of the pilot, the proposals that 

participating banks described in their applications, and the first quarter 

2008 results.

2

 The extent to which an institution’s small-dollar loan program may 

be subject to positive CRA consideration is described in the FDIC’s 

Affordable Small-Dollar Loan Guidelines issued on June 19, 2007, 

which can be found at http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2007/

pr07052a.html.

Background

Thirty-one banks are currently participating in the 

pilot program.3 The banks, which are headquartered 

in 15 states, range in asset size from $26.0 million to 

$10.0 billion and have a total of 446 banking offices in 

26 states (see Table 1). To be considered for the pilot, 

banks were required to meet certain supervisory criteria 

and to submit applications describing their small-dollar 

loan programs.4

A primary goal of the pilot is to observe and report on 

ways banks can successfully offer affordable small-dollar 

loans. Therefore, the FDIC encourages innovation in 

program design and execution, and provided only 

general guidelines for banks that volunteered for the 

pilot. The FDIC anticipated that most programs would 

be consistent with the Affordable Small-Dollar Loan 

Guidelines (SDL Guidelines), but banks are allowed 

some flexibility. The primary loan product features 

described in the SDL Guidelines include the following:

•	 Loan amounts up to $1,000

•	 Payment periods beyond a single paycheck cycle

•	 Annual percentage rates (APRs) below 36 percent

•	 Low or no origination fees

•	 Streamlined underwriting

•	 Prompt loan application processing

•	 Automatic savings component

•	 Access to financial education

3

 As expected at the outset of the pilot, the composition of pilot banks 

has changed somewhat, but the overall number of participants has 

remained at 30 or above.

4

 The pilot is open to additional volunteer banks. For more information 

about the small-dollar loan pilot program application process, see the 

FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program Web site at http://www.fdic.

gov/smalldollarloans/. 

Feature Article:

The FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program: 

A Case Study after One Year
FDIC Quarterly 30 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

calculate, or anecdotal. To obtain information that is 

difficult to quantify, the FDIC has engaged in extensive 

one-on-one discussions with bank management to help 

identify important elements related to program 

feasibility.

Year One Financial Results

Pilot banks provide separate data on two categories of 

loans: small-dollar loans (SDLs) up to $1,000 and 

nearly small-dollar loans (NSDLs) over $1,000 and up 

to $2,500. The SDL threshold of $1,000 was chosen for 

consistency with the FDIC’s SDL Guidelines and to 

determine whether $1,000 can be viewed as a “bright 

line” for a replicable small-dollar loan program 

template. As a result, more detailed data for SDLs have 

been collected thus far.

Some exceptions to the SDL Guidelines exist among 

the loan programs of participating banks. For example, 

depending on their business plan and consumer demand, 

a number of banks in the pilot originate loans larger 

than $1,000. In addition, while several participating 

banks require automatic savings linked to small-dollar 

loans, others encourage but do not require savings.

Pilot banks are asked to provide quarterly information 

to help identify best practices related to successful 

small-dollar loan programs. The pilot is a case study and 

not a statistical sample, but some information, such as 

the total number and dollar amount of loans made, is 

relatively straightforward for participating banks to 

report and for the FDIC to aggregate. Other useful 

information cannot be collected in a standardized fashion because it is more subjective, difficult for banks to 

Table 1

Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program Participants

Bank Location Total Assets ($000s) Number of Branches

Amarillo National Bank Amarillo, TX 2,782,020 15

Armed Forces Bank Fort Leavenworth, KS 833,062 51

Bank of Commerce Stilwell, OK 92,014 3

BankFive Fall River, MA 707,596 13

BBVA Bancomer USA Diamond Bar, CA 148,467 27

Benton State Bank Benton, WI 43,997 3

Citizens Trust Bank Atlanta, GA 403,740 10

Citizens Union Bank Shelbyville, KY 634,107 20

Community Bank & Trust Cornelia, GA 1,272,478 44

Community Bank of Marshall Marshall, MO 90,612 6

Community Bank - Wheaton/Glen Ellyn Glen Ellyn, IL 308,019 4

The First National Bank of Fairfax Fairfax, MN 26,049 1

First United Bank Crete, IL 470,955 5

Kentucky Bank Paris, KY 679,193 16

Lake Forest Bank & Trust Lake Forest, IL 1,519,128 8

Liberty Bank New Orleans, LA 404,104 17

Liberty National Bank Paris, TX 248,375 3

Main Street Bank Kingwood, TX 325,283 3

Mitchell Bank Milwaukee, WI 76,209 11

National Bank of Kansas City Kansas City, MO 748,438 6

Oklahoma State Bank Guthrie, OK 42,549 4

Pinnacle Bank Lincoln, NE 2,390,981 55

Red River Bank Alexandria, LA 733,932 14

State Bank of Alcester Alcester, SD 86,646 1

State Bank of Countryside Countryside, IL 976,088 6

The Heritage Bank Hinesville, GA 839,552 29

The Savings Bank Wakefield, MA 398,397 9

Washington Savings Bank Lowell, MA 160,150 3

Webster Five Cents Savings Bank Webster, MA 550,939 8

White Rock Bank Cannon Falls, MN 151,049 7

Wilmington Trust Wilmington, DE 9,956,298 44

Source: FDIC. 

Note: Participants and data are as of first quarter 2009.
FDIC Quarterly 31 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program

pilot banks’ SDLs and NSDLs are within the recommended 36 percent maximum APR, including origination or similar upfront fees. Basic loan characteristics, 

such as interest rates, fees, and repayment terms, do not 

vary between banks that make a few loans and those 

that are large originators. Therefore, there is no distinction between large and small originators in the fourth 

quarter loan term data shown in Table 4.

Loan terms have remained fairly consistent quarter to 

quarter. For example, the average size of SDLs has 

hovered around $675, the interest rate has remained at 

about 15 percent, and loan terms have ranged from 10 

to 12 months in each of the first four quarters. Similarly, 

for NSDLs, the average size has been close to $1,700, 

the interest rate has remained between 14 and 15 

percent, and the term has ranged from 14 to 16 months.

While underwriting processes vary somewhat among 

pilot banks, most use streamlined underwriting criteria. 

All pilot banks require proof of identity, address, and 

income, and a credit report to determine loan amounts 

and repayment ability. Of the few banks that use credit 

scoring in the underwriting process, most call for a 

minimum Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) threshold of 

500 to 550. All pilot banks can underwrite SDLs and 

NSDLs within 48 hours, and many indicate that loans 

can be processed in less than an hour if the borrower 

has the appropriate documentation. The bank’s size and 

business model determine whether the bank uses a 

centralized approval process or vests lending authority 

with branch managers or similar personnel.

Ten banks require SDL customers to open a savings 

account linked to SDLs, while nine encourage, but do 

not require, customers to open a savings account. For 

fourth quarter 2008, 339 new linked savings accounts 

were opened with a balance of $78,000 at the end of 

the quarter. Many banks have reported that their 

programs provide good opportunities to cross-sell other 

products and services. Although it can be difficult to 

track and quantify, a majority of participating banks 

reported selling other products to SDL customers. The 

most commonly cross-sold products were checking 

accounts.

Elements Related to Program Feasibility

According to bank interviews, a number of overarching 

elements directly affect the feasibility of SDL and 

NSDL programs. For example, almost all banks in the 

pilot indicated that strong senior management and 

board of directors support is a key factor in ensuring the 

During the first four quarters of the pilot, participating 

banks originated 8,346 SDLs with a balance of $5.5 

million and 7,681 NSDLs with a balance of $13 million 

(see Table 2). At the end of the fourth quarter, 5,550 

SDLs totaling $2.5 million and 5,679 NSDLs totaling 

$7.9 million were outstanding. The total dollar amount 

of SDLs delinquent 30 days or more at the end of the 

fourth quarter was $184,636, or 7.3 percent of loans 

outstanding. The total dollar amount of SDLs charged 

off to date was $187,378, or 3.4 percent of loans originated under the pilot.5

 A few banks indicated that job 

losses and other economic problems in their market 

areas have recently led to increases in delinquencies 

and losses across loan categories and to a general reduction in the pool of acceptable borrowers.

Table 3 shows loan volume data for fourth quarter 2008 

by originator size. Because several banks with longstanding programs have disproportionately large origination volumes, results for banks originating 50 or more 

loans per quarter are isolated from the rest of the group 

to prevent skewing the loan volume. Smaller originators 

made, on average, 9 SDLs and 13 NSDLs in the fourth 

quarter. This compares with an average of eight SDLs 

and eight NSDLs in the first quarter.

All banks in the small-dollar loan pilot offer only 

closed-end installment loans. In addition, all of the 

5

 Charge-off and delinquency data for NSDLs have not been tracked 

for purposes of the pilot. Industry-wide results showed that 2.6 

percent of loans to individuals were 30 to 89 days past due in fourth 

quarter 2008, and 3.4 percent were charged off. See “Quarterly Banking Profile Fourth Quarter 2008,” FDIC Quarterly, vol. 3, no.1 (2009), 

http://www2.fdic.gov/qbp/2008dec/qbp.pdf. 

Table 2

Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Cumulative 

Originations 

Statistics 1Q08 – 4Q08

SDLs NSDLs

1Q08 Number 1,523 1,617

Volume $1,013,118 $2,696,996

2Q08 Number 2,388 1,918

Volume $1,495,661 $3,202,358

3Q08 Number 2,225 2,113

Volume $1,502,456 $3,651,934

4Q08 Number 2,210 2,033

Volume $1,492,273 $3,434,906

Total Number 8,346 7,681

Volume $5,503,508 $12,986,184

Source: FDIC.

Note: SDLs are small-dollar loans of up to $1,000. NSDLs are nearly small-dollar loans 

over $1,000 and up to $2,500.
FDIC Quarterly 32 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

with limited competition for SDL and NSDL products. 

Eleven banks target SDL and NSDL customers by offering small-dollar products in offices with large populations of low- and moderate-income (LMI), immigrant, 

and military households that may have a greater 

demand for these products. In addition, many of the 

banks, regardless of location, cite the importance of 

strong partnerships with nonprofit community groups to 

refer, and sometimes qualify, potential borrowers.

programs’ success. In addition, all participants expressed 

a strong commitment to their communities and felt that 

offering SDLs and NSDLs is part of that commitment. 

Pilot banks also cited the importance of having an 

engaged “champion” in charge, preferably with lending 

authority, significant influence over bank policy decisions, or both.

Bank location was also linked to program feasibility. 

Nine pilot banks consider their market areas to be rural, 

Table 3

Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program 4Q08: Summary of Loan Number and Volume Data

Number of 

Banks Reporting Total Average Minimum Maximum

Loans Up to $1,000

All Banks

# of Notes 24 2,210 92 1 1,548

Note Volume 24 $1,492,273 $62,178 $900 $1,019,450

Banks Originating Fewer Than 50 Loans

# of Notes 19 179 9 1 39

Note Volume 19 $137,234 $7,223 $900 $34,900

Banks Originating More Than 50 Loans

# of Notes 5 2,031 406 60 1,548 

Note Volume 5 $1,355,039 $271,008 $27,950 $1,019,450

Loans Over $1,000

All Banks

# of Notes 15 2,033 136 1 849 

Note Volume 15 $3,434,906 $228,994 $2,550 $1,379,266

Banks Originating Fewer Than 50 Loans

# of Notes 10 129 13 1 39

Note Volume 10 $216,261 $21,626 $2,550 $62,135

Banks Originating More Than 50 Loans

# of Notes 5 1,904 380 86 849 

Note Volume 5 $3,218,645 $643,729 $177,064 $1,379,266

Source: FDIC.

Table 4

Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program 4Q08: Summary of Loan Characteristics

Number of 

Banks Reporting Average Minimum Maximum

Loans Up to $1,000

Loan Amount 24 $675 $399 $1,000

Term (months) 24 12 3 24

Interest Rate (percent) 24 15.34 3.25 32.00

Non-zero Fees (dollars) 12 $28 $1 $70

Loans Over $1,000

Loan Amount 15 $1,690 $1,350 $2,550

Term (months) 15 16 7 36

Interest Rate (percent) 15 14.04 8.00 30.00

Source: FDIC.
FDIC Quarterly 33 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program

has resulted in strong and profitable business and 

community relationships through cross-selling over the 

long term.

Twenty-two of the pilot banks operate new SDL/NSDL 

programs. While they are beginning to attract new 

customers and cross-sell other products, on a standalone basis, most new programs are not yet profitable. 

Most of the banks with new programs are interested in 

the long-term, relationship-building model. One such 

bank is Citizens Trust Bank in Atlanta, Georgia, (see 

text box on page 36). The bank recently revamped its 

SDL/NSDL program by broadening its target market 

from military personnel to the general population, 

including the military, after encountering strong 

competition and modest consumer interest in its initial 

program. Bank management also modified underwriting, 

advertising, and the approval process, among other 

areas. Although the long-term profitability and feasibility of this new program are still being assessed, Citizens 

Trust Bank has experienced a robust consumer response 

to the revamped SDL/NSDL product.

Short-Term Profitability Business Model

While most of the banks with new SDL or NSDL 

programs are interested in pursuing the long-term 

relationship-building business model, a few have 

achieved, or intend to achieve, short-term profitability 

from these programs. All of these banks are located 

primarily in census tracts with high concentrations of 

LMI households, immigrant households, or both, and 

have identified a need for small-dollar loan products 

among these consumers. In general, these banks are 

better positioned to generate higher transaction 

volumes and tend to impose interest rates and fees at 

the higher end of the range, although they remain 

within the recommended 36 percent APR limit.

For example, as described in the text box on page 37, 

Bank of Commerce in Stilwell, Oklahoma, identified a 

demand for SDL products among its large base of LMI 

customers by, among other things, observing that a 

number of its customers were writing checks to payday 

and similar lenders. Bank management leveraged this 

demand into a profitable program in the short term by 

designing a streamlined, reasonably priced SDL product, 

with linked savings and multiple opportunities for crossselling products.

Moreover, banks indicated that these partnerships foster 

word-of-mouth advertising for their SDL and NSDL 

products. As the pilot has progressed, word of mouth 

has emerged as the predominant marketing method. 

However, some banks also use radio, print, and billboard advertising; statement stuffers; branch brochures 

and placards; and outbound calling based on purchased 

customer lists to promote SDL and NSDL products.

Business Models: Case Study Examples

Generally, the SDL and NSDL programs offered by 

pilot banks can be categorized into three business 

models, depending on the bank’s program goals. While 

some banks have overlapping goals, most have designed 

their programs to be long-term, relationship-building 

tools that also create goodwill in the community. Some 

banks are engaging in SDL and NSDL lending exclusively for the goodwill aspect and the opportunity to 

receive positive CRA consideration. Finally, a few 

banks report that SDL and NSDL programs have been 

designed to generate short-term profits. The following 

section summarizes the three business models and 

features case studies of banks operating under each 

model.

Long-Term, Relationship-Building Business Model

Nine banks in the pilot were already operating SDL/

NSDL programs—some for 20 years or more—prior to 

the start of the pilot. Banks with existing programs were 

the most likely to report that overall relationships with 

SDL and NSDL customers are profitable. These banks 

indicate that costs related to originating and servicing 

an SDL or NSDL are similar to other loans. However, 

given the small size of SDLs and to a lesser extent, 

NSDLs, the interest income and fees generated are 

often not sufficient to achieve short-term profitability. 

Nevertheless, banks with existing programs have been 

able to generate long-term profitability through volume 

and by using the SDL and NSDL products to cross-sell 

additional products.

For example, as described in the text box on page 35, 

Amarillo National Bank in Amarillo, Texas, has been 

offering SDLs and NSDLs for more than 100 years.6

The bank has not officially tracked the profitability of 

its SDLs and NSDLs or the number of additional products sold to SDL and NSDL customers. However, bank 

management firmly believes that offering these products 

6

 Banks listed in this article are for illustration only. The FDIC does not 

endorse any bank or product.
FDIC Quarterly 34 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

building long-term profitable relationships is the most 

feasible business model. Some banks believe that their 

location, underwriting processes, and pricing structures 

will allow for short-term profitability. Others focus 

solely on providing a service to the community by 

ensuring that reasonably priced credit is available to a 

broad range of consumers. The FDIC will continue to 

explore the feasibility of participant banks’ programs as 

the pilot continues over the next year. Banks and 

others interested in the pilot can contact the FDIC at 

smalldollarpilot@fdic.gov.

Authors: Susan Burhouse, Senior Financial Economist

 Rae-Ann Miller, Special Advisor to the Director 

of the Division of Insurance and Research

Aileen G. Sampson, Financial Economist

The authors would like to thank the following individuals for 

their review of this article: Luke Reynolds, Chief, Outreach 

and Program Development Section, Division of Supervision 

and Consumer Protection, FDIC; Beryl Barmore, Vice 

President and CRA Manager, Wilmington Trust Bank; 

Lilia Escajeda, Vice President and CRA Officer, Amarillo 

National Bank; Jason Garhart, Vice President, Bank of 

Commerce; and Sharnell Reynolds, Assistant Vice President 

and Director of Consumer Lending, Citizens Trust Bank.

Community Goodwill and CRA Business Model

A few banks in the pilot, both those with existing and 

new programs, offer SDL or NSDL products solely for 

the goodwill they generate in the community and the 

potential for positive CRA consideration. Most such 

banks are located in suburban areas with few LMI or 

immigrant-dense census tracts. These banks are likely to 

work primarily or exclusively with consumer and 

community groups that refer clients.

For example, as described in the text box on page 38, 

Wilmington Trust Bank, Wilmington, Delaware, offers 

its SDL program exclusively through a partnership with 

West End Neighborhood House, a social services organization that has worked with the bank on various 

projects for a number of years. The bank’s goal is to 

enhance the availability of affordable credit to LMI 

consumers in its community, rather than to increase 

profitability or build customer relationships.

Conclusion

After one year, the FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan Pilot 

Program has provided evidence that banks can offer 

reasonably priced alternatives to high-cost, short-term 

credit. Most participating banks have determined that 

using SDL and NSDL products as a cornerstone for 
FDIC Quarterly 35 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program

Amarillo National Bank

Amarillo, Texas

Amarillo National Bank is a $2.7 billion, family-owned 

bank located in Amarillo, Texas. In addition to its main 

office, the bank has 14 branches, all of which are in, or 

close to, Amarillo. Located in the center of the Texas 

panhandle, Amarillo is the nation’s 120th largest city. 

Amarillo has a diverse economy composed of farm and 

ranch operations, cattle feeding and processing operations, extensive cancer research and medical facilities, 

and petroleum-related industries. It is also the home of 

Bell Helicopter’s Osprey production facility, as well as 

Pantex, a nuclear assembly and disassembly facility. 

The city’s populace is diverse; about 26.3 percent of 

households are Latino or Hispanic, compared to the 

nationwide average of 14.7 percent.a

The bank’s SDL/NSDL program has existed for more 

than 100 years, and bank management believes that 

making these loans is in line with the bank’s local focus 

and desire to serve its community. There are no established parameters for loan amounts, but the standard 

minimum is $500. The bank may make loans exceeding 

$2,500 on a case-by-case basis, but it is only reporting 

loans up to this limit in accordance with the NSDL 

threshold. All loans are closed-end, and terms generally 

range from 9 to 12 months. The average interest rate is 

about 14 percent, with a maximum rate of 18 percent, 

and the bank does not charge an origination fee.

In addition, the bank offers a discount for consumers 

who choose to have their payment automatically 

debited from their checking account. Proof of income, 

identity, and address is required. A credit report is also 

obtained as part of the underwriting process, but the 

bank does not require a particular credit score. Underwriting is delegated to branch managers, and if the 

customer’s documents are in order, a loan can be underwritten in just a few minutes.

a

 U.S. Census Bureau, “2005–2007 American Community Survey.” 

In the first four quarters of the pilot, Amarillo National 

Bank originated 1,074 SDLs and 1,911 NSDLs. As of 

the end of the fourth quarter, 640 SDLs with a cumulative balance of $487,000 and 1,594 NSDLs with a 

cumulative balance of $2.8 million were outstanding. 

Twenty-one SDLs originated in the first four quarters 

have been charged off, and 155 were 30 days or more 

delinquent as of the end of the fourth quarter.

The bank does not require linked deposit products and 

does not formally track the profitability of SDL or 

NSDL products or overall relationships with these 

customers. Indeed, the bank only recently began to 

tally cross-selling of products for the purposes of this 

pilot; for the last half of 2008, the bank opened 64 

savings and checking accounts for SDL customers. 

However, bank management strongly believes that 

providing SDLs and NSDLs is a service to the community that pays off over the long term through goodwill 

and stronger customer relationships. According to the 

program administrator, Vice President and CRA Officer Lilia Escajeda, “Amarillo National Bank has been 

making these loans for as long as I have been here [30 

years], and I still see people with houses, successful businesses, kids in college, who tell me that the small-dollar 

loan I made to them was their first step in establishing 

a relationship with a bank.”

Amarillo National Bank does not formally advertise its 

SDL and NSDL products. Rather, after many years of 

offering these loans, the bank relies on word of mouth 

in the community. Bank management also attributes 

the success of the program to the bank’s strong commitment to and partnerships with civic and business organizations, schools, community groups, and other 

organizations. Many bank employees volunteer to work 

with these groups to provide financial education and 

promote the bank’s relationship-based approach to 

banking, which includes SDLs and NSDLs.

Long-Term Feasibility through Volume and Relationships
FDIC Quarterly 36 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Citizens Trust Bank

Atlanta, Georgia

Citizens Trust Bank is a $348 million, African-Americanowned bank in Atlanta, Georgia. In addition to its main 

office, Citizens Trust has seven metropolitan Atlanta 

branches; one branch in Columbus, Georgia; one branch 

in Birmingham, Alabama; and one in Eutaw, Alabama. 

Four of the Atlanta branches, both Alabama branches, 

and the Columbus branch are located in LMI census 

tracts. Columbus, Georgia, is a metropolitan area 

bordering Alabama and is close to a large military population at the Fort Benning Military Reserve.

Beginning in early 2008, through its Columbus office 

only, Citizens Trust Bank targeted military personnel at 

Fort Benning exclusively for its SDL product. After 

several months of advertising in the Bayonet—the Fort 

Benning newspaper—and airing radio advertisements, 

the bank originated only a few of the military-targeted 

SDLs. Originations were hampered by competition 

from programs offered on the military base that had 

already gained a large share of the market among Fort 

Benning consumers.

As a result of low loan volumes, management decided 

to significantly change its program by expanding the 

target market beyond military personnel to include the 

general public. In December 2008, the bank began 

offering a new small-dollar product called the “Community Relief Loan” at all of its branches. Citizens Trust 

Bank primarily used radio advertising and signs in bank 

branches to promote the product. According to Citizens Trust Bank’s Assistant Vice President and Director 

of Consumer Lending Sharnell W. Reynolds, in the 

first two months of the program, the Community Relief 

Loan campaign had generated 574 applications and 81 

originations totaling more than $116,000.

Unlike the military-focused loan program that required 

linked savings accounts, linked savings are optional 

under the Community Relief Loan program. Nevertheless, in the first two months of the program, Community 

Relief Loan customers had opened a total of 52 new 

savings and checking accounts. Borrowers are strongly 

encouraged to authorize automatic debits of loan 

payments from a savings or checking account. Although 

none of the loans were delinquent or in default as of the 

fourth quarter, the program is still very new.

The Community Relief Loan ranges from $500 to 

$1,500. Each loan carries a $48 origination fee, and the 

interest rate is 15 percent. The maximum term on a 

$500 Community Relief Loan is six months; one year is 

the maximum term on larger loans. To qualify, borrowers must have a FICO credit score of at least 500, proof 

of regular income for six months, no outstanding liens 

or judgments, and have been at their current address for 

at least one year. The bank also has alternative underwriting processes to accommodate prospective borrowers with thin or no credit histories. The maximum loan 

amount for these applicants is $500, and they must 

provide proof of employment for the previous six 

months and show an alternate form of good credit 

history. For instance, borrowers might provide proof 

that they have paid their rent or utility bills on time for 

the previous six months.

The loan approval process is decentralized and managed 

at each of the bank’s ten branches by Financial Relationship Managers. Each Financial Relationship 

Manager has Community Relief Loan approval authority and uses a standard underwriting checklist to guide 

routine application determinations. Those who recommend exceptions to the checklist guidelines route their 

requests to the corporate offices in Atlanta. With or 

without an exception, it generally takes less than 24 

hours from the time an application is submitted to 

deliver a check to an approved borrower. If all of the 

required borrower documentation is on hand at the 

time an application is submitted, same-day delivery is 

possible.

Because the revamped program is still new, bank 

management continues to evaluate the program’s 

success and ongoing feasibility. Going forward, they 

will assess its profitability, consider its usefulness as a 

tool for building new business relationships and crossselling, and gauge how well it meets the needs of the 

communities served by Citizens Trust Bank.

Re-evaluating Program Features Based on the Marketplace
FDIC Quarterly 37 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program

Bank of Commerce

Stilwell, Oklahoma

Bank of Commerce is a $92 million bank in Stilwell, 

Oklahoma. In addition to its main office, the bank has 

a branch in Stilwell and a branch in Park Hill, Oklahoma. Most of the bank’s SDLs are originated out of the 

main office in Stilwell. Located in northeastern Oklahoma in southern Adair County (of which it is the 

county seat), Stilwell is east of Muskogee, Oklahoma, 

about seven miles from the Arkansas border. According 

to bank management, Stilwell is rural, with a large 

concentration of LMI households.

The bank’s SDL program was new at the time it applied 

to the pilot program, and its application indicated that 

these loans would be an extension of the bank’s desire 

to meet the needs of its customers. Loans range from 

$200 to $1,000, and all are closed-end with a 12-month 

term. The interest rate varies, in accordance with the 

bank’s general interest rate policy, and currently does 

not exceed 13.75 percent for these loans. The origination fee is $25 to $50, depending on the size of the loan, 

which, combined with the interest rate, has resulted in 

an average APR of 25 percent. Proof of income, identity, and address is required. A credit report is obtained 

as part of the underwriting process, but the bank does 

not require a particular credit score. If the customer’s 

documents are in order, a loan can be underwritten in 

less than one hour. A centralized loan officer approves 

all of the SDLs.

In the first four quarters of the pilot, Bank of Commerce 

originated 84 loans. As of the end of the fourth quarter, 

41 loans, with a cumulative balance of $8,200, were 

outstanding. Two loans have been charged off to date, 

and two were 30 days or more delinquent as of the end 

of the fourth quarter.

Bank of Commerce encourages, but does not require, 

SDL customers to open savings accounts linked to their 

SDL. For linked savings accounts, the bank adds 25 

percent to each monthly payment and deposits it into a 

savings account. For example, if a monthly payment is 

$50, the loan payment book or automated clearinghouse ticket reflects $62.50, with $50 debited for loan 

repayment and $12.50 applied to savings. As of the end 

of the fourth quarter, SDL customers had accumulated 

a total of $1,000 in linked savings.

In addition to linked savings accounts, the bank strongly 

encourages SDL customers to open checking accounts. 

Consumers may choose to have their loan payment 

debited from their checking account. The bank also 

attempts to graduate SDL customers to other credit 

products after satisfactory performance with SDLs. In 

the second, third, and fourth quarters of the pilot, Bank 

of Commerce reported that a total of 74 credit products 

were sold to SDL customers.b

Bank management has indicated that SDLs are profitable on a stand-alone basis and have provided a gateway to establishing customer relationships. Management 

attributes profitability to the bank’s pricing structure, 

streamlined product design, attentive underwriting, 

and solid demand from a large base of LMI consumers. 

According to Vice President Jason Garhart, “We offer 

check-cashing services and see lots of folks that we’d 

like to have as customers, and we see our own customers 

writing checks to payday lenders and such. We thought 

that an affordable small-dollar loan product might be a 

good way to build relationships with new customers, 

strengthen our relationships with existing customers, 

and do some good for the community.”

Bank of Commerce initially advertised its SDL program 

through a mass mailing to existing customers. Branch 

personnel have also been trained to discuss the SDL 

product with consumers and refer potential borrowers 

to the lending staff. Early in the program, bank personnel advertised SDLs in local newspapers, although they 

do not believe these advertisements yielded many 

potential applicants. A more effective method has been 

placing promotions for SDLs in a rotation of bank product advertisements on an electronic billboard located 

on a highway close to the bank’s main office.

b

 Information regarding cross-selling of other credit products in 

the first quarter is not available.

Leveraging Location for Profits, Relationships, and Community Service
FDIC Quarterly 38 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Wilmington Trust

Wilmington, Delaware

Wilmington Trust Company is a $10 billion institution 

headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, with 44 

branches throughout the state. Wilmington Trust is a 

leading retail and commercial bank in Delaware and is 

one of the largest personal trust providers in the country. The bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wilmington Trust Corporation and has three major business 

lines: regional banking, corporate client services, and 

wealth advisory services.

To enhance the accessibility of credit for LMI borrowers in the Delaware market, Wilmington Trust has 

collaborated with West End Neighborhood House 

(WENH), a large community organization in the city of 

Wilmington, for about 15 years on a number of community initiatives. WENH is a nonprofit organization that 

delivers coordinated social services to help low-income 

and underserved individuals attain self-sufficiency. In 

late 2007, just prior to the start of the FDIC’s SmallDollar Loan Pilot Program, WENH created the Worker’s Loan Program to compete with payday lenders and 

provide a more affordable option for individuals needing to borrow cash quickly.

The Worker’s Loan Program provides loans between 

$250 and $500 at interest rates ranging from 12 to 15 

percent with no fees. Loans are repaid in a maximum of 

four installments based on the borrower’s pay schedule. 

To qualify, applicants must present the same types of 

information that payday lenders often require: a recent 

bank statement showing no overdrafts, recent pay stubs, 

a driver’s license or state photo identification card, and 

a current utility bill. A unique feature of this program is 

that WENH screens the applicants, performs the underwriting, and then faxes the loan application to the bank 

for processing, all of which can be completed in less 

than two hours. Although customers apply for the loans 

at WENH, once approved, they are directed to one of 

Wilmington Trust’s branches to collect loan proceeds. 

Qualified borrowers submit postdated checks for each 

planned installment to WENH at the time the loan is 

approved, and WENH deposits the checks to Wilmington Trust on the payment due dates.

One of the most important elements of the partnership 

between WENH and Wilmington Trust is that borrowers can receive a full range of social services from 

WENH that can enhance their ability to remain current 

on their loan payments. All borrowers receive credit 

and budget education, but clients can also receive case 

management, crisis intervention, and other services.

Throughout 2008, Wilmington Trust originated 238 

Worker’s Loans totaling nearly $100,000. At the end of 

fourth quarter 2008, 13 loans were delinquent and 14 

had been charged off. Wilmington Trust Vice President 

and CRA Manager Beryl Barmore reported that the 

Worker’s Loans have been performing somewhat better 

than might be expected given the borrowers’ risk 

profiles, although not as well as the bank’s other 

consumer loans. She noted, however, that the capacity 

of applicants to take on even small loans declined 

during the difficult economic environment in early 

2009. All loans made through the Worker’s Loan 

Program are fully guaranteed by WENH and are collateralized by a loan loss reserve funded by grants and 

donations from other program partners, including 

financial institutions and social service organizations.

The Worker’s Loan Program is prominently featured on 

WENH’s Web site (www.westendnh.org). The United 

Way of Delaware is working with WENH to implement 

a comprehensive marketing and public relations plan, 

in addition to helping WENH expand the program 

throughout the entire state. Wilmington Trust and 

WENH have observed, however, that careful attention 

must be paid to reaching the right target audience. For 

example, early efforts to publicize the program by 

broadly encouraging social services agencies to disseminate information were not successful because many 

clients at those agencies would not qualify for the loan 

program. Ongoing and future marketing strategies will 

make clear that, like payday loans, the Worker’s Loan 

Program is targeted toward individuals who are 

employed and have a bank account in good standing.

Wilmington Trust does not assess the profitability of 

the program and has not sought to cross-sell or develop 

banking relationships with Worker’s Loan Program 

borrowers, most of whom are not deposit customers of 

the bank. The Worker’s Loan Program was developed 

to provide a reasonably priced alternative to payday 

loans in an efficient manner, and bank management 

believes it has succeeded. According to WENH, anecdotal evidence suggests that borrowers are using fewer 

high-cost debt products than they did before acquiring 

a Worker’s Loan. In addition, several individuals in 

WENH’s housing counseling program have been able 

to use this loan program to pay off small debts, improve 

their credit rating, and thereby qualify for a mortgage.

Partnering with Nonprofits to Help the Community
FDIC Quarterly 39 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Feature Article:

Findings from the FDIC Survey of Bank Efforts to 

Serve the Unbanked and Underbanked

Banks offer individuals the opportunity to save, borrow, 

invest, and build a credit record. Access to a basic 

bank account and financial services is fundamental to 

economic self-sufficiency. Millions of Americans, 

however, are unbanked or underbanked, meaning 

that they do not have access to banks or are not fully 

participating in the mainstream financial system.1

This article summarizes the key findings of and recommendations drawn from the FDIC Survey of Bank Efforts 

to Serve the Unbanked and Underbanked.

2

 It is intended 

to inform bankers, policymakers, and researchers of the 

results of the survey and to outline steps to improve 

access to the financial mainstream.

The survey finds that while most banks are aware that 

their market areas include significant unbanked and 

underbanked populations, relatively few have made it 

a strategic priority to target these market segments. In 

addition, while a number of banks are trying to reach 

the unbanked and underbanked, relatively few participate in the types of outreach that are thought to be 

particularly effective. The survey findings also indicate 

that although banks recognize the challenges associated 

with doing business with unbanked and underbanked 

individuals, they are making some progress in improving the accessibility of banking services.

Background

Few statistics are available on the actual number of 

unbanked and underbanked individuals and households 

in the United States. However, the percentage of 

American families that are unbanked is estimated at 

1

 Unbanked individuals and families are those who have rarely, if ever, 

held a checking account, savings account, or other type of transaction 

or check-cashing account at an insured depository institution. Underbanked individuals and families are those who have an account with 

an insured depository institution but also rely on nonbank alternative 

financial service providers for transaction services or high-cost 

credit products. 2

 The FDIC retained Dove Consulting to help administer the survey of 

banks. Dove Consulting collected the survey results and reported 

aggregated results to the FDIC. The survey results were released on 

February 5, 2009. For complete results, see http://www.fdic.gov/

unbankedsurveys/.

about 10 percent, and a substantial share of the population may be underbanked.3

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is 

committed to ensuring that consumers have access to 

basic banking and other financial services. The FDIC is 

also dedicated to developing more robust data about 

unbanked and underbanked households and the factors 

that hinder them from fully using the mainstream 

financial system. As part of the commitment to these 

issues, during 2008 the FDIC conducted a nationwide 

survey of FDIC-insured depository institutions to assess 

efforts to serve unbanked and underbanked individuals 

and families.

The survey, the first of its kind at the national level, is 

mandated by Section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (Reform 

Act). The Reform Act requires that the FDIC conduct 

biennial surveys “on efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have 

rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings 

account or other type of transaction or check-cashing 

account at an insured depository institution into the 

conventional finance system.”

In designing the survey, the FDIC focused on questions 

raised in the Reform Act and sought to provide information to the banking industry that would enhance the 

efforts of insured institutions to serve the unbanked and 

3

 The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in its Survey 

of Consumer Finances, reports that 8 to 13 percent of U.S. households lack transaction accounts. See Survey of Consumer Finances

for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007. The Center for Financial 

Services Innovation recently estimated that 40 million U.S. households are underbanked. See The CSFI Underbanked Consumer Study, 

June 8, 2008, at http://www.cfsinnovation.com/research-paper-detail.

php?article_id=330366. 
FDIC Quarterly 40 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

underbanked.4 The objectives of the survey were as 

follows:

1. Identify and quantify the extent to which insured 

institutions reach out to, serve, and meet the banking needs of unbanked and underbanked individuals 

and households;

2. Identify challenges affecting the ability of insured 

institutions to serve unbanked and underbanked 

individuals and households; and

3. Identify innovative efforts that insured institutions 

use to serve unbanked and underbanked individuals 

and households.

Bank Survey Details

The survey was voluntary and consisted of mail-in questionnaires administered to a stratified random sample of 

about 1,300 banks.5 The nationally representative 

sample was selected from the population of federally 

insured banks and thrifts with retail branch operations. 

Each of the 25 largest insured banks was included in the 

sample; 48 percent of all other banks with assets over 

$1 billion were also sampled, as were 14 percent of 

banks with assets under $1 billion. In all, 685 complete 

surveys were returned, resulting in a response rate of 

54 percent. The response rate was 96 percent for the 

25 largest banks, 61 percent for banks with assets over 

4

 One of several factors and questions the Reform Act asks the FDIC to 

consider in conducting the survey is, “What is a fair estimate of the 

size and worth of the ‘unbanked’ market in the United States?” The 

FDIC is addressing this question through a separate household survey 

effort conducted jointly with the U.S. Bureau of the Census as a 

supplement to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey in 

January 2009. The goals of that survey are to gather accurate estimates of the number of unbanked and underbanked households in the 

United States, their demographic characteristics, and reasons why 

they are unbanked or underbanked. It is anticipated that the results of 

this survey will fill many data gaps regarding unbanked and underbanked households in the United States. The FDIC plans to release the 

results later this year.

5

 The universe for the survey was the 7,487 federally insured banks 

and thrifts operating in the United States during the first quarter of 

2007. Because a statistical sample was selected for the survey (i.e., 

a stratified random sample), valid statistical estimates of universe 

statistics were derived from the sample. These estimates were “unbiased,” aside from the impact of survey nonresponse. To correct for 

the nonresponse bias, a standard weight adjustment procedure was 

used. See Chapter 2 of the survey report for a complete discussion of 

the survey methodology.

$1 billion, and 51 percent for banks with assets under 

$1 billion.6

The survey consisted of three sections. The first section 

focused on bank financial education and outreach 

efforts. The second section examined the obstacles that 

limit banks’ ability to serve the unbanked and underbanked. This section asked about the perceived challenges to serving these customers, efforts to improve 

access through retail branch operation modifications, 

services provided to noncustomers who may be 

unbanked or underbanked, and bank account opening 

practices and policies. The final section assessed the 

types of deposit, payment, and credit products offered to 

entry-level consumers, focusing on innovative products 

that serve the needs of unbanked and underbanked 

individuals.

A limited number of bank case studies were included 

along with the survey results. The case studies were 

developed from in-depth interviews with 16 surveyed 

banks that appeared to be successfully developing innovative business opportunities with unbanked and underbanked individuals. Case study banks were carefully 

selected based on a variety of information, including 

survey questionnaire responses and industry research.7

Summary of Survey Results

Financial Education and Outreach Efforts

A main objective of the survey was to quantify the 

extent to which banks serve and reach out to unbanked 

6

 Twenty-four of the 25 largest banks responded to the survey. The 

universe of the survey also included 564 banks with assets over 

$1 billion; 268 of these banks were included in the sample and 159 

responded. There were 6,898 banks with assets under $1 billion in 

the survey universe; 994 of these banks were included in the sample 

and 502 responded.

7

 The FDIC identified some case study banks based on industry 

research completed prior to the implementation of the survey. Other 

case study banks were chosen if their responses to the survey 

revealed particularly innovative or successful strategies for reaching 

the unbanked and underbanked. The case study population was 

designed to include banks of varying sizes and covering different 

geographies. All case study banks had to meet “good standing” 

criteria, which considered ratings for Community Reinvestment Act, 

safety and soundness, and compliance. The 16 case study banks are 

Amalgamated Bank, New York, NY; Artisans’ Bank, Wilmington, DE; 

BancorpSouth, Tupelo, MS; Bangor Savings Bank, Bangor, ME; Carver 

State Bank, Savannah, GA; Central Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, 

MO; Citibank, N.A., Las Vegas, NV; Citizens Union Bank of Shelbyville, 

Shelbyville, KY; The Commerce Bank of Washington, Seattle, WA; Fort 

Morgan State Bank, Fort Morgan, CO; International Bank of Commerce, 

Laredo, TX; KeyBank, Cleveland, OH; Mitchell Bank, Milwaukee, WI; 

Monroe Bank & Trust, Monroe, MI; Ridgewood Savings Bank, Ridgewood, NY; and Second Federal Savings of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 
FDIC Quarterly 41 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Serving the Unbanked and Underbanked

education sessions” as the most effective, followed by 

“financial outreach with other organizations” and “offpremise outreach visits” (see Table 1). Almost all banks 

(98 percent) rank financial outreach with other organizations and outreach visits among the top three most 

effective strategies.

Bank perceptions of the most effective education and 

outreach strategies do not necessarily correlate with 

their participation in these activities. For example, 

banks ranked “providing financial education materials” 

as only the fourth most effective outreach strategy, even 

though this method is the most commonly used. Sixtythree percent of banks provide financial education 

materials to the unbanked and underbanked, often in 

the form of brochures and pamphlets (see Chart 3 on 

page 42 for a summary of bank participation in various 

outreach strategies). Responses to open-ended survey 

questions suggest that most banks do not distinguish 

and underbanked individuals. However, to effectively 

educate and establish banking relationships with individuals outside of the mainstream, banks must first 

identify where these populations reside and commit to 

serving them. The survey found that 73 percent of 

banks are aware that unbanked and underbanked 

populations exist in their market areas (see Chart 1).8

However, fewer than 18 percent of banks identify 

expanding services to these individuals as a priority 

in their business strategy (see Chart 2). More than 

three-quarters of banks (77 percent) have not 

conducted research on this potential opportunity in 

their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) assessment 

areas.9 According to the survey, the 25 largest banks are 

more likely than smaller banks to identify expanding 

services to these groups as a priority, although fewer 

than half (46 percent) have done so.

When asked to rank the three most effective strategies 

for educating and reaching out to unbanked and underbanked customers, banks identified “teaching financial 

8

 Throughout this article, statistically valid estimates from the sample 

are presented as percentages of the survey universe without referring 

to them specifically as “estimates.” For example, in this reference, 

“73 percent of banks” is “an estimated 73 percent of banks.” 9

 In 1977, Congress enacted the CRA to encourage federally insured 

banks and thrifts to help meet the credit needs of their entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent 

with safe and sound operations. The CRA implementing regulations 

require a bank to delineate one or more assessment areas, which 

are geographic areas (e.g., entire Metropolitan Statistical Areas or 

individual census tracts) that the bank reasonably expects to serve. 

Assessment area delineations may not arbitrarily exclude low- or 

moderate-income geographies or reflect illegal discrimination. The 

bank’s primary federal bank regulatory agency evaluates the bank’s 

record of helping to meet the credit needs of the assessment area(s) 

that the bank defined, consistent with safe and sound lending.

Chart 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

25 Largest Banks Assets > $1 Billion Assets < $1 Billion

Yes

No

Don’t Know

Does the bank perceive unbanked and underbanked populations in its market?

The Majority of Banks Are Aware That Unbanked and

Underbanked Populations Exist in Their Market Areas 

Source: FDIC.

Chart 2

Is expanding services to the unbanked a priority in the bank’s business strategy?

 Banks Are Generally Aware of Unbanked Populations

in Their Market Areas, but Most Do Not Consider

Serving the Unbanked a Strategic Priority 

Yes

No

Don’t Know

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

25 Largest Banks Assets > $1 Billion Assets < $1 Billion

Source: FDIC.

Table 1

Banks Identified 

“Teaching Financial Education” 

As the Most Effective Outreach Strategy

Effectiveness 

Ranking Programs

1 Teaching financial education sessions

2 Financial outreach with other organizations

3 Off-premise outreach visits

4 Providing financial education materials

5 Targeted marketing

6 Other

Source: FDIC.
FDIC Quarterly 42 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

are more likely to engage in this strategy. Among banks 

that target a specific demographic, Hispanic Americans 

are targeted more frequently than other groups.

Perceived Challenges to Serving Unbanked and 

Underbanked Customers

Banks appear to assume that doing business with 

unbanked and underbanked individuals is not profitable, which is an obstacle to serving these populations. 

When asked to rank order the challenges banks face in 

serving or targeting the unbanked and underbanked, 

banks list “profitability issues” first, followed by “regulatory barriers” and “fraud concerns” (see Table 2). Of the 

40 percent of banks that perceive regulatory impediments, many cite concerns related to maintaining 

compliance with the Patriot Act and the Bank 

Secrecy Act.10

Bank Efforts to Improve Access to Retail Branches

In the past five years, banks have taken several steps to 

make retail branches more accessible to unbanked and 

underbanked customers. For example, almost two-thirds 

(64 percent) of banks reported that they modified their 

retail operations to make them more appealing or 

convenient. Almost three-quarters (73 percent) of these 

banks reported offering Internet or mobile banking. In 

addition, 47 percent of banks installed external automated teller machines (ATMs), and 43 percent added 

off-premise ATMs. Thirteen percent of banks added 

branches in nontraditional locations (e.g., community 

centers and supermarkets), and 20 percent added 

10 Title III of the Patriot Act, which was signed into law on October 25, 

2001, requires banks to establish a Customer Identification Program. 

The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970 requires U.S. financial institutions to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money 

laundering. The BSA is sometimes referred to as the “anti-money laundering” law (AML) or as “BSA/AML.” 

between unbanked and underbanked customers in their 

educational materials.

Many bank strategies for reaching unbanked and underbanked populations rely on partnering with or traveling 

to outside organizations. In all, 37 percent of banks 

participate in financial education or outreach efforts 

with other organizations in order to expand services to 

unbanked and underbanked individuals. Examples of 

these efforts include working with businesses to offer 

employee payroll cards, partnering with government 

entities to provide electronic benefit transfer or prepaid 

cards, and collaborating with faith-based groups to 

provide cash assistance. The largest 25 banks are more 

likely to participate in such efforts. Fifty-eight percent 

of banks reported that they conduct off-premise financial education and outreach visits, most commonly at 

high schools and community-based organizations. In 

addition, 38 percent of banks work with corporate or 

business customers to provide services for unbanked and 

underbanked employees. Larger banks are more likely to 

work with businesses to promote services for the 

unbanked.

About half (53 percent) of banks teach financial education sessions targeted to the unbanked and underbanked, which banks ranked as the most effective 

outreach method. Educational sessions are typically 

conducted offsite, and larger banks are more likely to 

offer them. Among banks that provide these sessions, 

the most frequently covered topics are basic banking 

and savings programs.

One-quarter of banks use targeted marketing to reach 

unbanked and underbanked individuals, and larger banks 

Chart 3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Targeted marketing

Financial outreach with

other organizations

Working with corporate

customers to serve employees

Teaching financial

education sessions

Off-premise outreach visits

Providing financial

education materials

Percentage of Banks Participating in

Financial Education and Outreach

Most Banks Provide Educational Materials, Classes,

and Off-Premise Outreach, but Other Efforts to Reach

Unbanked Populations Are More Limited 

Source: FDIC.

Table 2

Banks Report That Profitability Issues and 

Regulatory Concerns Pose Challenges to 

Serving the Unbanked

Ranking Challenges

1 Profitability issues

2 Regulatory barriers

3 Fraud concerns

4 High cost of customer acquisition

5 Competition from alternative service providers

6 Unfamiliarity with this population

7 Internal challenges

8 Other challenges

Source: FDIC.
FDIC Quarterly 43 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Serving the Unbanked and Underbanked

The type of identification required to cash a check can 

also pose challenges for noncustomers who may be 

unbanked or underbanked. Most banks will accept a 

driver’s license (92 percent) or state-issued photo 

identification (86 percent) from noncustomers who 

wish to cash checks. However, only a limited number 

of banks accept the Matrícula Consular identification 

(20 percent) and the Individual Taxpayer Identification 

Number (ITIN) (1 percent) as primary forms of identification for check cashing by noncustomers (see 

Chart 6 on page 44).12

Besides check cashing, other transaction services to 

noncustomers are relatively limited. For example, 

37 percent of banks offer bank checks and money orders 

to noncustomers, 6 percent offer international remittances, and 2 percent offer check-cashing cards.

Bank Account-Opening Practices and Policies

Unbanked and underbanked individuals also face a 

number of challenges in establishing banking relationships. These individuals often must present governmentissued identification to open a bank account. While most 

banks will accept either a driver’s license (99 percent) 

or passport (92 percent), only 27 percent of banks 

accept Matrícula Consular cards and only 38 percent 

accept ITINs as forms of identification for opening a 

new account.

12 Matrícula Consular cards are identification cards issued to Mexican 

national citizens by the government of Mexico through its consulate 

offices. Similar consulate identification cards are issued to citizens of 

other countries.

branches in low- to moderate-income (LMI) areas.11

In addition, many banks now offer extended hours 

(59 percent) and employ bilingual staff (52 percent) at 

their retail branches (see Chart 4).

Another way banks can be more accessible to unbanked 

and underbanked customers is to offer a range of products and services that may especially appeal to them; 

however, most banks do not incorporate this approach 

into their branch strategies. Indeed, fewer than half 

of banks offer check cashing (49 percent) and money 

orders (41 percent) as part of their strategy to serve 

the unbanked and underbanked. Far fewer offer other 

services, such as bill-paying services and prepaid card 

issuance and reloading (see Chart 5).

Services Banks Provide to Noncustomers 

Who May Be Unbanked or Underbanked

Although a bank cannot reasonably determine whether 

a noncustomer is unbanked or underbanked, offering a 

variety of services to noncustomers is one way of reaching those populations. One service that the unbanked 

and underbanked commonly use is check cashing. 

However, banks provide limited check-cashing opportunities for noncustomers. Most banks (96 percent) will 

cash checks for noncustomers drawn on the bank itself, 

but fewer than one-third will cash payroll and other business checks not written on the bank for noncustomers.

11 In low-income areas, income is equal to or less than 50 percent of 

the median income of the local Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or 

appropriately defined rural area. In moderate-income areas, income is 

between 50 percent and 80 percent of the median income of the local 

MSA or appropriately defined rural area. 

Chart 4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Saturday

afternoon hours

(after 1:00 p.m.)

The Majority of Banks Offer Extended Hours,

Typically during Weekday Evenings 

Percentage of Banks Offering Extended Hours at Full-Service 

Brick-and-Mortar Branches*

Source: FDIC.

*Based on all banks offering some type of extended hours; 41 percent of banks do not 

offer extended hours.

Weekday

evening hours

(after 5:00 p.m.)

Sunday hours

Chart 5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Check Cashing

Money Orders

Bill Payment

Prepaid Cards

Other

Check-Cashing Kiosks

Percentage of Banks Offering Services as

Part of Strategy to Reach the Unbanked

Banks Offer a Limited Range of Services That Might

Appeal to Unbanked and Underbanked Individuals 

Source: FDIC.
FDIC Quarterly 44 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Deposit, Payment, and Credit Products and Services 

Offered to Entry-Level Consumers

Accounts and products that are designed to address the 

needs of unbanked and underbanked individuals often 

succeed in bringing them into the mainstream banking 

system. The survey shows that most banks offer basic 

savings, deposit, and transaction accounts to qualified 

customers. For example, almost two-thirds (62 percent) 

of banks offer an entry-level checking account with no 

minimum balance. Another 8 percent of banks 

normally charge a minimum fee on their most basic 

checking account but will waive the fee if the customer 

uses direct deposit. When required, the median minimum balance with or without direct deposit was $100.

Nearly all banks (99 percent) charge a per-item overdraft fee on their most basic (lowest cost) transaction 

account. These fees range from $8 to $38, with a 

median of $25. While more than half (60 percent) of 

banks offer some type of program that will cover or 

waive the overdraft fee, such programs frequently 

involve a line of credit or transfer and may not be available to underbanked customers. More than half of 

banks (57 percent) that charge overdraft fees automatically close an account after a customer has a certain 

number of overdrafts (ranging from 1 to 500) or if an 

account has a negative balance for a given period of 

time (ranging from 10 to 180 days).

In addition, nearly all banks (97 percent) offer lowbalance (under $500) basic savings accounts, but fewer 

offer savings programs designed to help unbanked and 

underbanked customers. Seven percent of banks offer 

savings accounts through workplace-based programs, 

A blemished credit history presents further challenges 

to opening a new account. Most banks (87 percent) 

require a third-party credit check screen, such as ChexSystems, when a customer opens a new checking 

account.13 One-quarter of banks automatically reject a 

new account application that receives a negative result 

on the credit check screen, and only half (49 percent) 

can override a negative result at a branch location. 

However, one-quarter of banks offer “second chance” 

accounts designed for individuals not qualified for 

conventional bank accounts.14

Survey results reveal that a blemished credit history and 

insufficient identification impede unbanked and underbanked individuals from opening bank accounts more 

than any other factor. When asked to rank order the 

three most common reasons that a new account applicant is declined, banks identified “negative account 

screening” first, followed by “insufficient identification 

information” and a “low credit score.”

13 ChexSystems, Inc., is a network of financial institutions that 

provides deposit account verification services to members and information to help them identify account applicants who may have a 

history of account mishandling (for example, people whose accounts 

were overdrawn and then closed by their bank). 

14 “Second chance” accounts are frequently checkless accounts or 

accounts with limited check-writing privileges that may be connected 

to a debit card. They usually provide most or all of the benefits of a 

regular checking account, including a bank routing number and 

account number. 

Chart 6

Percentage of Banks That Accept Various Types of Identification from Noncustomers for Check Cashing

It Is Difficult for Noncustomers Without Government-Issued Identification to Cash Checks at Banks

Source: FDIC.

Note: ITINs are Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers. A primary identification is sufficient by itself, and a secondary identification is insufficient by itself but acceptable together 

with another secondary identification. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Driver’s licenseState-issued

photo ID

Passport Military ID Student ID SSN Matrícula

Consular

ITIN Utility bills Employer

letters/

pay stubs

Housing

lease

Primary

Secondary
FDIC Quarterly 45 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Serving the Unbanked and Underbanked

serve as alternatives to payday loans.17 About two-thirds 

(69 percent) offer closed-end unsecured personal loans 

for amounts under $5,000. Among banks that do offer 

such loans, nearly all (97 percent) reported that they 

can originate an unsecured personal loan in less than 

48 hours; 80 percent reported that they can originate 

such a loan in less than 24 hours.18 However, eligibility 

requirements may hinder access for unbanked and 

underbanked customers.19 About one-third (36 percent) 

of banks offer consumer credit cards, but most require a 

Social Security number, credit history, and minimum 

credit score to qualify, which likely limits availability to 

LMI individuals.

Case Study Highlights

The 16 case studies included with the survey results 

demonstrate that banks can serve the unbanked and 

underbanked markets both profitably and effectively.20

The case study banks, which represent various asset size 

classes and geographic locations, are successfully serving 

these populations through a variety of innovative strate17 See Christine Bradley, Susan Burhouse, Heather Gratton, and RaeAnn Miller, “Alternative Financial Services: A Primer,” FDIC Quarterly,

vol. 3, no. 1 (2009) for more information about the prevalence of 

payday lending and other alternative financial services. 

18 Survey responses to a question asking whether banks offer affordable small-dollar loans revealed confusion about the product, since a 

number of banks counted overdraft lines of credit in their affirmative 

responses. The questionnaire defined “affordable small-dollar loans” 

as loans for “less than $1,000/at least a 90-day repayment term/less 

than 36 percent APR/low or no fees.”

19 Eligibility requirements frequently include review of credit history 

(required by 94 percent of banks), proof of income (required by 76 

percent of banks), minimum credit score (required by 50 percent), and 

deposit relationship (required by 41 percent). 

20 The FDIC does not endorse any bank or product.

8 percent participate in or offer Individual Development 

Account (IDA) programs, and 3 percent participate in 

Internal Revenue Service Voluntary Income Tax Assistance (VITA) programs.15 Fewer than one-quarter 

(22 percent) of banks partner with organizations to 

promote savings products, and about half (49 percent) 

offer special savings clubs. The largest 25 banks were 

more likely to offer some of these programs.

At many banks, funds availability from deposited 

checks, while in compliance with federal regulations, is 

slow relative to nonbank check-cashing services.16

Funds are often made available most quickly for business and personal checks drawn on the bank (known as 

“on-us” checks), but at least one-third of banks require 

a minimum one-day waiting period before funds are 

available from these checks (see Chart 7). Longer waits 

are frequently required for government or payroll 

checks and checks drawn on another bank (see Chart 

8). In addition, fewer than 6 percent of banks advance 

funds due to arrive by direct deposit or check, which 

can make banks less competitive than nonbank checkcashing services.

Banks offer few credit products tailored to LMI, 

unbanked, and underbanked individuals that could 

15 Workplace-based programs, IDAs, and VITA programs can help 

bring unbanked and underbanked individuals into the mainstream 

financial system through savings products. IDAs are matched savings 

accounts that allow LMI individuals to save, build assets, and enter the 

financial mainstream. VITA programs offer free tax help to LMI individuals who cannot prepare their own tax forms. 

16 The Expedited Funds Availability Act of 1987 (Federal Reserve Regulation CC) sets maximum timeframes that a bank can withhold funds 

and is enforced by the bank’s primary federal supervisor. 

Chart 7

Next day

36 percent 

Second day

1 percent 

Current day

63 percent

Nearly Two-Thirds of Banks Are Able to Provide

Same-Day Availability of Funds for

On-Us Business Checks 

Funds Availability for Customers Presenting Business Checks 

Drawn on the Bank

Source: FDIC.

Chart 8

Next day

48 percent

Second day

21 percent

Current day

28 percent

Most Bank Customers Must Wait at Least One Day to

Receive Funds from Business Checks

Drawn on Another Bank

Funds Availability for Customers Presenting Business Checks 

Not Drawn on the Bank

Source: FDIC.

Three or

more days

3 percent
FDIC Quarterly 46 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

and publish further research on these issues using these 

survey results as well as results from the FDIC’s National 

Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, which 

was conducted jointly with the Census Bureau in January 2009.

In addition, the FDIC will continue to pursue initiatives already under way that are designed to encourage 

insured institutions to serve the unbanked and underbanked, including the Advisory Committee on 

Economic Inclusion (ComE-IN), the Alliance for 

Economic Inclusion (AEI), the Affordable and Responsible Consumer Credit (ARC) Small-Dollar Loan Pilot 

Program, and the Money Smart financial education 

program (see text box above). The FDIC will also share 

information on best practices through the general 

examination process, meetings, and conferences.

Going forward, the government and financial industry 

might wish to define a shared goal to lower the number 

of unbanked and underbanked individuals and households. This effort would require reliable and regularly 

reported statistics on the number of unbanked and 

gies. For example, several case studies suggest that banks 

are most successful in educating and reaching out to the 

unbanked and underbanked when they have established 

solid relationships with community organizations and 

have the support of these and other important stakeholders inside and outside the bank. Other case studies 

highlight banks that have overcome obstacles to working with the unbanked and underbanked by adapting to 

changing customer demographics, offering bank services 

in more casual or convenient settings, providing greater 

and more varied means of accessing bank services, 

and giving bank employees a key role in welcoming 

unbanked individuals. Finally, a number of case studies 

portray banks that are offering entry-level accounts and 

services that incorporate innovative features, such as 

debit cards and prepaid cards. Complete case studies 

appear in Chapter 12 of the survey report.

Next Steps

The FDIC hopes that the results of the survey will 

assist policymakers, researchers, and practitioners as 

they continue their work to expand access to the mainstream financial system. The FDIC intends to conduct 

FDIC Activities to Encourage Economic Inclusion

The FDIC’s Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion (ComE-IN) was established by Chairman Sheila C. 

Bair and the FDIC Board of Directors in November 2006 

according to requirements of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. ComE-IN provides the FDIC with 

advice and recommendations on important initiatives 

focused on expanding access to banking services by 

underserved populations. Expanding access may include 

reviewing basic retail financial services, such as check 

cashing, money orders, remittances, stored value cards, 

short-term loans, savings accounts, and other services 

that promote asset accumulation and financial stability.

The FDIC’s Alliance for Economic Inclusion (AEI) is 

a national initiative to establish broad-based coalitions of 

financial institutions, community-based organizations, 

and other partners in ten markets across the country to 

bring all unbanked and underserved populations into the 

financial mainstream. AEI focuses on expanding basic 

retail financial services for underserved populations, 

including savings accounts, affordable remittance products, small-dollar loan programs, targeted financial education programs, alternative delivery channels, and other 

asset-building programs. To date, 952 banks and organizations have joined AEI nationwide; more than 65,000 

new bank accounts have been opened; 45 banks are offering or developing small-dollar loans; 33 banks are offering remittance products; and more than 61,000 consumers 

have received financial education.

The FDIC’s Affordable and Responsible Consumer 

Credit (ARC) Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program is a 

two-year pilot project to review affordable and responsible 

small-dollar loan programs in financial institutions. The 

purpose of the study is to identify effective and replicable 

business practices to help banks incorporate affordable 

small-dollar loans into their other mainstream banking 

services. Best practices resulting from the pilot will be 

identified and become a resource for other institutions.a

The FDIC’s Money Smart financial education curriculum is designed to help adults outside the financial mainstream enhance their money skills and create positive 

banking relationships. The FDIC also oversees the Money 

Smart Alliance, which consists of about 1,250 financial 

institutions, nonprofit organizations, schools, government authorities, and others that partner with the FDIC 

to provide financial education targeted to LMI households and others.

a See Susan Burhouse, Rae-Ann Miller, and Aileen G. Sampson, 

“An Introduction to the FDIC’s Small-Dollar Loan Pilot Program,” 

FDIC Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 3 (2008), 23–30, http://www.fdic.gov/

bank/analytical/quarterly/2008_vol2_3/FDIC135_Quarterly_Vol2No3_

Small_Dollar_Article.pdf.
FDIC Quarterly 47 2009, Volume 3, No. 2

Serving the Unbanked and Underbanked

underbanked households in the United States and 

could be based on the results of the FDIC’s National 

Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. A 

national task force, composed of senior representatives 

of federal bank and credit union regulators and the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, could be created to 

provide oversight and guidance.

Conclusions

The FDIC Survey of Bank Efforts to Serve the Unbanked 

and Underbanked has helped clarify efforts by financial 

institutions to increase economic inclusion. Banks 

recognize that unbanked and underbanked populations 

exist in their market areas, and many are trying to reach 

out to these individuals. Still, many opportunities 

remain in what is a largely untapped marketplace. 

The FDIC encourages all banks to expand their efforts 

to address the unique needs of the financially underserved. Using the survey results, practitioners, policymakers, and others who are committed to increasing 

access to the financial mainstream can work together to 

ensure that all consumers have access to basic banking 

and financial services.

Authors: Barbara Ryan, Deputy to the Vice Chairman

Susan Burhouse, Senior Financial Economist

Members of the FDIC Unbanked and Underbanked 

Survey Study Group are Barbara Ryan and Yazmin Osaki 

(Office of the Vice Chairman); Susan Burhouse, Katherine 

Samolyk, and David Chapman (Division of Insurance and 

Research); Luke Reynolds and Angelisa Harris (Division 

of Supervision and Consumer Protection); and Leneta 

Gregorie (Legal Division).
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Washington, DC 20429-9990

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

PRESORTED 

STANDARD

MAIL

Postage &

Fees Paid

FDIC

Permit No. G-36