What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "financial institution". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
CROTHERS v. SOPER et al. In re STEELE.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
January 12, 1926.)
No. 2421.
Bankruptcy 184(2)— Claim under mortgage withheld from record, so as not to affect mortgagor’s credit, properly expunged and disallowed.
Where mortgage was withheld from record, so as not to affect mortgagor’s credit, claim thereunder was properly disallowed and expunged from record of trustee in bankruptcy.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore, in Bankruptcy.
In the matter of the bankruptcy of J ames Groome Steele. The claim of Omar D. Crothers was disallowed and expunged from the record of Morris A. Soper and others, trustees, by the referee and the District Court, and claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
Isaac L. Straus, of Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
William J. Bratton and Albert D. Mae-key, both of Elkton, Md. (Clarence K. Bowie and Bowie & Clark, all of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellees.
Before WADDILL and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this ease, the relations existing between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, especially that the contested mortgage for $5,225, assuming the same to have been given originally for a valid consideration and effective as between the parties, was by understanding, if not by agreement, withheld from the record, so as not to affect the mortgagor’s credit, the conclusion of the court is that the action of the District Judge and the referee, expunging and disallowing the said claim from the list of those upon the trustee’s record, should be approved and affirmed. We are led to this view, moreover, by the fact that the case seems to be ruled by those of National Bank of Athens v. Shackelford, 36 S. Ct. 17, 239 U. S. 81, 60 L. Ed. 158 (in the Circuit Court of Appeals, 208 F. 677, 678, 125 C. C. A. 575); In re Lamie Chemical Co. (C. C. A.) 296 F. 24, 28; Millikin v. Second National Bank, 206 F. 14, 19, 124 C. C. A. 148 (both decisions of this court).
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "financial institution". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
bank
insurance
savings and loan
credit union
other pension fund
other financial institution or investment company
unclear

Answer: 5