FDIC: Bank Failures To Cost Around $100 Billion

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - FDIC: Bank Failures To Cost Around $100 Billion stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

MARCY GORDON and DANIEL WAGNER | 09/29/09 05:47 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
FILE - In this Aug. 27, 2009 file photo, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair speaks to the press at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. headquarters in Washington. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is expected to take the unprecedented step of collecting banks' regular premiums early to inject cash into the shrinking deposit insurance fund. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, file)

WASHINGTON — A plan that regulators proposed Tuesday to have banks prepay $45 billion in insurance premiums won't provide a long-term fix for the shrinking fund that insures bank deposits.

But the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s proposal would spare ailing banks the immediate cost of an alternative idea: paying an emergency fee for the second time this year. And most banks would likely be able to prepay their premiums without having to reduce lending to businesses and consumers.

Regulators said they expect the cost of bank failures to grow to about $100 billion over the next four years – up from an estimate of $70 billion earlier this year. Faced with that sobering news, they voted to require banks to prepay $45 billion in premiums to replenish an insurance fund that will start running dry on Wednesday.

The FDIC board's proposal to require early payments of premiums for 2010-2012 could take effect after a 30-day public comment period. Depositors' money is guaranteed – up to $250,000 per account – by the FDIC. It would be the first time the agency has required prepaid insurance fees.

The increased loss estimate underlines the short-term nature of the prepayment solution. The agency will be able to continue paying depositors when banks fail. But banks will have to pay tens of billions more in coming years to keep the fund solvent.

Still, the shortfall won't likely make it harder for consumers and businesses to get loans. Most banks still have adequate funds available for lending. In a sluggish economy, fewer people and businesses are seeking loans. And investors wary of stocks and bonds have funneled more of their deposits to banks.

"What the FDIC is effectively doing is borrowing from the banking industry, and they can afford it," said independent banking consultant Bert Ely.

The FDIC's plan would draw on banks' ready cash. Instead of charging them a one-time fee that would deplete their capital reserves, it would spread the costs of the refunding over three years.

Story continues below
advertisement

But the expected cost of hundreds more bank failures means banks will likely face higher premiums and more fees in the long run.

"Any way you slice it, the banking industry will pay the cost of these failures over time," said James Chessen, chief economist with the American Bankers Association. "It will be a burden that healthy banks will have to shoulder over the next seven or eight years."

Banks pay for the deposit insurance program through regular premiums. The fund has been sapped by a rash of bank failures since mid-2008. Without additional special fees or increases in regular premiums, the insurance fund – at $10.4 billion at the end of June – will become "significantly negative" next year and could remain in deficit until 2013, the FDIC now projects.

Ninety-five banks have failed so far this year as losses have mounted on commercial real estate and other soured loans amid the most severe financial climate in decades. That has cost the fund about $25 billion, the FDIC said Tuesday.

The $10.4 billion already was the fund's lowest point since 1992, at the height of the savings-and-loan crisis. That is equivalent to 0.22 percent of insured deposits, below a congressionally mandated minimum of 1.15 percent.

Most of the $100 billion in costs are expected to come from failures this year and next, the agency said. -

Given those rising costs, some analysts said increased premiums or another fee are inevitable.

"You pull this forward once, but if the gap is large, you'll have to charge (an extra fee) anyway," said Jaret Seiberg, an analyst with Concept Capital's Washington Research Group.

Banks are limited in their lending by the amount of capital they hold in reserve. Capital provides a cushion to protect against loan defaults and other losses. Banks that lack enough capital can't extend new credit.

Some banks have had to tighten lending since the financial crisis struck because regulators say their capital buffers are too low. The FDIC plan preserves bank capital by spreading the cost of replenishing the fund over three years. Because the fees were expected, banks' long-term financial outlook doesn't change.

The agency had considered several options for propping up the fund. They included tapping a $100 billion credit line at the Treasury Department, or charging banks a special fee for the second time this year.

The Treasury plan would have raised bank premiums in the long run as the agency paid down its debt. A one-time fee would have drawn down banks' capital abruptly. That would have limited their ability to lend and endangered banks that are already short on cash.

"What the FDIC has realized is that another special assessment like that would do more harm than good," Chessen said.

The plan the FDIC settled on amounts to an "early collection" of money the fund would need over the next three years, Seiberg said. He called the move a "one-time accounting gimmick."

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said it struck "a good balance," requiring the banking industry "to step up" while spreading the cost over a number of years.

An insurance payment by the industry of $45 billion "is not going to constrain lending," she said.

WASHINGTON — A plan that regulators proposed Tuesday to have banks prepay $45 billion in insurance premiums won't provide a long-term fix for the shrinking fund that insures bank deposits. But ...
WASHINGTON — A plan that regulators proposed Tuesday to have banks prepay $45 billion in insurance premiums won't provide a long-term fix for the shrinking fund that insures bank deposits. But ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
25
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

The problem facing the FDIC is money; there simply is not enough of it. The FDIC has already closed 95 banks this year (compared to 25 total in 2008) and 416 more are classified at high risk of failure. The solution to increase reserves proposed yesterday would require banks to prepay their premiums for 2010-2012. This would generate money upfront and prevent FDIC funds from drying up.

Critics of this pre-pay solution (largely led by the banks themselves) have offered two perilous alternatives:

The first alternative proposed by critics is to use taxpayer dollars by dipping into the FDIC’s credit line with the Treasury and borrowing from the government. Use taxpayer dollars??? Haven’t Main Street taxpayers’ bank accounts been damaged enough by Wall Street’s blunders? A solution that “fixes” the problem by penalizing Main Street is shameful and inexcusable.

The second alternative proposes that the FDIC borrow from the banks themselves. In effect, the FDIC would regulate the very banks that it is borrowing from. That scenario creates a dangerous conflict of interest. Banks will have one up on the regulators that owe them money. (Surely, you would take it easy on your lender.)

Sheila Blair and the FDIC are right. The banking industry must step up and take part in finding a solution to a problem that they were responsible for creating in the first place.

Steve Berk
Berklawdc.com
Avoiceform­ainstreet.­com

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 09/30/2009

"But the expected cost of hundreds more bank failures means banks will likely face higher premiums and more fees in the long run."

"Higher premiums and more fees" translates to: the weeding out of the zombie banks has just begun. The zombie banks can't afford the higher payments. And when they default, they will be closed. A more solvent bank will then pick up the assets at fire sale prices.

Too big to fail just got bigger.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 PM on 09/29/2009

Many people think the crisis is over and are reentering into the stock market like lemmings, but the final shoe may be yet to drop. I would not be surprised if there is another shock to the financial system in the coming months involving one or more of the following companies; Bank Of America, Jp Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, General Electric, or Lehman.

good articles; http://www.iamned.com

More toxic assets I suppose. Bad loans and defaults like 2008. Then a retest of March lows? maybe

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 09/29/2009

The disconnect between the problems facing main street and Washington keep widening. For the past year we've heard nothing but talk of regulation, but zero action. What a joke.

good articles... http://www.iamned.com

meanwhile, the stock market is surging and everyone is too busy to counting their money to show any initiative
.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 PM on 09/29/2009
- oakley9 I'm a Fan of oakley9 20 fans permalink

LEGALIZED PONZI?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 PM on 09/29/2009
photo

Yup, WE saved entities that tell everyone else to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". I hope we get paid back, with interest, for that alone should take care of a good chunk of the national debt, that interest... (at 30% APR, or perhaps twice as much given the "double-standards rate" that should be imposed...)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 09/29/2009
- timbo628 I'm a Fan of timbo628 4 fans permalink

Maybe the government should take over the banks...they don't seem to be doing too well on their own.

Oh yeah, that would be socialism. We're so much better off with capitalism...that's where bankers pay themselves millions of dollars, fail miserably and then have taxpayers bail them out. You've goota love the "free market".

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 09/29/2009
photo

Quite.

It's "free market" ONLY when THEY want it.

In reality, it's bull****. Yanked fresh from the cow.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 09/29/2009
- joebhed I'm a Fan of joebhed 45 fans permalink
photo

WHOA, Timbo.
Don't fall for that.
I'm sure somehow that you want the government's role of protecting the average American worker to translate into a powerful force for economic democracy.
All right there with ya.

But, nationalize the banks?
A mistake of gargantuan proportion.
Imagine all of that toxic crap showing up on OUR balance sheet - this is exactly what the bankers are trying to do right now.

What we need to do is quite simple - take back the money system.
We need to nationalize the money system, which is, as Milton Friedman said, a natural government monopoly.

If you check out the American Monetary Institute's proposal for reforming the money system here,
you will find that we are capable of restoring the money-creation power back to the people, acting through their government, and put banks back to banking, where they belong, creating loans out of real money, like most people think they do now.

http://www.monetary.org/amacolorpamphlet.pdf

And, by the way, this is not socialism.
The banks and the banking system should pr privately organized and operated for the purpose of free enterprise.
But it would be wrong to have the banks control "the creation and destruction" of money, as their own profit motives dictate.
I discuss the need for a permanent money system here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gGqA4M1YI&feature=channel_page

please have a look.

The Money System Common.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:09 PM on 09/29/2009
- mrjames1 I'm a Fan of mrjames1 3 fans permalink

Sweden faced a VERY similar problem in 1991. They briefly nationalized the banks, cleaned them up, and only took a 2% of one year GDP hit according to best Swedish estimates. That would be like a 300B hit in the US for cleaning up its banks. We're at a couple trillion plus, with no reform, increased derivatives and leverage, and the criminals still running the show. DAMN Its gonna be ugly when the real collapse hits.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 AM on 10/09/2009
- factotem I'm a Fan of factotem 124 fans permalink
photo

"FDIC: Bank Failures To Cost Around $100 Billion"

...conservatively
(smirk)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:37 PM on 09/29/2009
- oakley9 I'm a Fan of oakley9 20 fans permalink

Sounds like the FDIC is learning a few tricks from Bernie.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 09/29/2009

Only $100 billion? No problem. It'll probably on cost $50,000 to prevent a $100 billion more.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 09/29/2009
- vippy I'm a Fan of vippy 64 fans permalink

100 billion dollars and our FDIC is broke. The end of the line is near. I don't see how things are getting any better. Who said our economy is improving though jobless LOL? Add up the bonuses and salaries and they may be able to save those banks.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 PM on 09/29/2009
photo

hey, this is impossible.

Bank nationalization is free. How can nationalizing just these tiny little banks cost 100 billion? Why, that would mean nationalizing Citigroup would cost close to a trillion. That can't be. It was supposed to be free.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 PM on 09/29/2009
- joebhed I'm a Fan of joebhed 45 fans permalink
photo

Bank nationalization is fraught with problems for the American taxpayer.

The solution is to nationalize the money system, and leave the banking system to private bankers.

It is our money system, we need to take it back from the Fed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gGqA4M1YI&feature=channel_page

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 09/29/2009
- munki I'm a Fan of munki 33 fans permalink
photo

Allow me to rephrase the title...

Is it Bank Failure or Abuse of Greed Failure?

Who made money? CEOs and top Executives...

Who lost money? US the taxpayers...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 09/29/2009

Since the FDIC began running a deficit, it means that we the taxpayers (and our children and grandchildren) are going to have to pay to replenish our own deposits (plus interest).

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 09/29/2009
- ThomasMc I'm a Fan of ThomasMc 10 fans permalink

Eight months, and Obama hasn't done a damned thing to reign in the bankers. The election was a sham.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 AM on 09/29/2009

In fact, he's done the opposite. He HELPED the bankers steal more money! He's also making sure Holder doesn't hold anyone accountable.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 09/29/2009

unfortunately, as an Obama voter, I have to agree with ThomasMc.

Wall Street is playing Obama like a puppet and we are all paying the price, which will become steeper as we move down the time line.

Mr. President, please start listening to Paul Volcker and for pete's sakes, get rid of Mary Schapiro who is an absolute embarassment to the concepts of truth, integrity, and independent regulation and oversight.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 09/29/2009
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect