Search results

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 included depositor preference legislation intended to reduce Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) resolution costs. However, depositor preference might induce an offsetting reaction by general creditors and may affect resolution type.

We examine the empirical impact of state-level depositor preference laws on resolution type and costs with call-report data and FDIC data for all operating FDIC-BIF insured commercial banks that were closed or required FDIC financial assistance from January 1986 through December 1992. Our major findings are that depositor preference has: (1) tended to increase resolution costs; and (2) induced the FDIC to choose assisted mergers over liquidations.

Here the author proposes the Mutual Insurance Model with Incentive Compatibility (MIMIC). MIMIC is a model for deposit insurance that mimics the incentives and practices of a private sector, mutual, insurance organisation. The main features of MIMIC are: fully risk‐based premiums, payments by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to the US Treasury Department (the Treasury) for its line of credit and ‘catastrophe insurance’, rebates to banks when the reserve ratio exceeds a risk‐based ceiling, surcharges on banks when the reserve ratio dips below a risk‐based floor, dilution fees on deposit growth to maintain reserve ratio and refunds to banks to maintain reserve ratio when their deposits shrink.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the implementation and development of eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The investigation seeks to gauge the roles and experiences of the FDIC and its main stakeholders to determine their engagement in XBRL diffusion within their organizations.

This is an qualitative research approach that is driven by the use of an in-depth case study and supported by the use of semi-structured interviews.

The findings showcase the role played by the FDIC as the first US regulatory authority that implemented and developed Inline XBRL. In addition, the use of diffusion of innovation theory provides better understanding of each stakeholder’s issues, benefits and challenges based on their experience.

The research does not examine the institutionalization of XBRL at the FDIC or its stakeholders. Therefore, future research could incorporate a different research design to capture the impact of the pressure resulting from the regulatory mandate.

The research offers practical insights into public information technology managers and policymakers at global government agencies which are either non-adopters of XBRL technology or current adopters and consider transitioning into Inline XBRL. Global stakeholders could learn from the US experience and develop better understanding of Inline XBRL applications and functionalities.

The originality of this research is driven by the FDIC’s experience as the first regulatory developer of Inline XBRL. As such, the case study is a best practice to future and current adopters who often navigate the nuisance of implementing new technologies and/or developing existing ones.

To alert financial market participants to rules jointly proposed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) regarding orderly liquidation of certain large broker-dealers as mandated in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank).

Explains how typical broker-dealer liquidations are generally effected, the alternative of determining a broker-dealer to be a “covered broker-dealer” to be liquidated through an orderly liquidation proceeding under Title II of Dodd-Frank, the appointment of the FDIC as receiver and Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) as trustee, the requirement for the SIPC to file a protective decree with a federal district court, the possible use of “bridge broker-dealers” to facilitate an orderly liquidation, the FDIC’s procedures for settling claims of customers and other creditors against covered broker-dealers, and additional proposed provisions for administrative expenses and unsecured claims.

Counterparties of broker-dealers that could be subject to an orderly liquidation proceeding should evaluate the proposal and consider whether, if adopted, the rules would require any changes to credit risk or other internal procedures. Large broker-dealers that could be the subject of such an orderly liquidation proceeding should do the same. Although the formal comment period has closed regarding the proposal, market participants that did not submit comments but who still wish to influence final rule making should still consider submitting written comments to the SEC and FDIC or otherwise advocating before them.

Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

This paper first generally discusses United States bank liquidations under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), and addresses the purposes and impact upon US financial institutions of FIRREA. It also addresses the role and powers of the FDIC as affected by FIRREA. The second section discusses the use of ancillary bankruptcy petitions in the United States to aid in the liquidations of foreign financial institutions. The paper concludes with a discussion of the availability of plenary bankruptcy relief for foreign bank holding companies and foreign banks not engaged in banking business in the United States.

Purpose – This chapter compares the stability of the U.S. Dual Banking system's two bank groups, national and state banks, in light of the current financial crisis. The goal of the chapter is to answer three distinct questions: first, is there a difference in the (balance sheet) fragility between the two groups and, second, to what extent has the balance sheet fragility of both groups changed after the escalation of the financial crisis beginning in August 2007? Building on that, the third question asks to whether or not the respective regulatory agencies of both bank groups are responsible for these changes in balance sheet fragility in light of the financial crisis.

Methodology – To answer these questions the chapter uses U.S. Call Report data containing full quarterly balance sheets and P&Ls of all U.S. commercial banks over the period 2005–2008. Anecdotal evidence as well as univariate and multivariate difference-in-difference methodology focusing on the immediate pre-crisis period Q1/2005–Q3/2007 and the crisis period Q3/2007–Q4/2008 are applied.

Results – Highly significant and robust results show that, ceteris paribus, national banks reduced their potential balance sheet fragility after the escalation of the crisis in August 2007 by reducing lending and liquidity creation stronger than state banks. Anecdotal evidence supports the empirical findings. Although both FDIC and OCC did not anticipate the adverse effects of the crisis, the OCC publicly showed an earlier reaction to liquidity-related problems than the FDIC.

Originality – The chapter is the first of its kind to analyze bank fragility around the escalation of the financial crisis and the role of the regulatory agencies. The chapter holds especially interesting policy implications in the light of the current discussion about the future regulation of the banking markets.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), an independent agency of the U.S. Federal government, has been instructing employees in the tenants of followership since 2009. As part of a multi-pronged approach to create a more empowered workforce and enhance trust in leadership, instruction in followership has helped to raise the FDIC from the bottom third on the best places to work in the Federal government to first place. This paper examines teaching the tenants of followership as an integral part of building individual competency in leading oneself and fostering an organizational culture of shared leadership.

This paper presents issues arising from the enactment of legislation that changes the priority ordering of claims by uninsured depositors and the FDIC in the resolution of costly failed insured banks and thrifts. Under the legislation, uninsured domestic depositors and the FDIC receive preference in the payment of their claims in the resolutions of failed insured institutions over both foreign depositors and general creditors. As a result of the legislation, one can expect changes in the behavior of nonpreferred claimants.

Purpose – This chapter investigates the influence of bank loan underwriting practices on loan losses and identifies potential determinants of lending practices for five categories of loans: business, consumer, commercial real estate, home equity, and construction and land development loans.

Methodology/approach – Using data on the riskiness of lending practices obtained from the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) bank examiner surveys from January 1996 to March 2009, I fit a two-step treatment effects model to measure the effects of underwriting practices on loan losses, controlling for the potential endogeneity of lending practices.

Findings – In the selection step, I find that for business loans, the likelihood that bank management will adopt low-risk lending practices increases with bank financial performance and management quality hierarchical complexity and decreases with market competition. Results for the selection of lending practices for consumer loans and three categories of real estate loans are similar to those found for business loans but show weaker statistical relationships to all explanatory variables. In the loss determination step, I find that lower (higher) risk underwriting practices are generally associated with lower (higher) gross loan charge-offs (as percentage of gross loans and leases) for five categories of loans: business, consumer, commercial real estate, home equity, and construction and land development loans.

Originality/value of chapter – This is the first study to model the determinants of loan underwriting practices with the practices being characterized in terms of their risk to the bank. In addition, this is the first study to consider the effects of the riskiness of lending practices on loan losses, controlling for the endogeneity of practices.

The purpose of this paper is to study the “underbanked” – those who already possess bank accounts but are patrons of alternative financial services (AFS) providers at the same time.

Linking the FDIC unbanked/underbanked surveys of nationally represented households with FDIC bank information and local MSA demographics, demographic and economic profiles of the underbanked households are examined, together with the determinants of their choice of nonbank financial services.

The author finds that bank fees are associated with the likelihood for households to obtain AFS, especially nonbank credit. Households’ attitudes and experience with banks are important in the choice of getting AFS. Furthermore, most underbanked households used AFS temporarily, partly reflecting rather informed and calculated financial decisions.

The results from this paper provide implications for different types of AFS users. For example, the use of transactional AFS responds to the availability of online or mobile banking; meanwhile, it is also sensitive to branch closure. Users of nonbank credits are likely to be price savvy, and these products serve as valuable alternatives for short-term financing, especially during unfavorable economic situation.

Better understanding of the underbanked could help banks tailor to existing clients’ needs, for instance, providing innovative short-term credit products for those with little or impaired credit history. The study also helps policy makers re-evaluate banking regulations since the Great Recession. As regulations squeezed bank profits in certain areas and forced banks to consolidate, come alongside higher bank fees, potential branch closure and loss of service, which ultimately forced banked individuals to the less regulated alternative providers.

The analysis utilizes a comprehensive set of variables, from household social-economic characteristics to local banking industry characteristics, together with households’ subjective opinions of their banking institutions. The focus on the underbanked brings attention to this underserved population and discusses areas where banks can improve. The study contributes to the understanding of AFS users, draws implications for regulation toward banking and shadow banking.