Observations from FDIC OIG
Material Loss Reviews Conducted
1993 through 2003
January 22, 2004
Audit Report No. 04-004
![FDIC](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20121010012527im_/http://www.fdicoig.gov/images/fdicsmall3.gif) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Audits
Office of Inspector General
Washington, D.C. 20434
DATE: January 22, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. Zamorski, Director, Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection
FROM: Russell A. Rau [Electronically produced version; original signed by
Stephen M. Beard for Russell Rau], Assistant Inspector General for Audits
SUBJECT:Observations from FDIC OIG Material Loss Reviews
Conducted 1993 through 2003 (Report No. 04-004)
This report presents summary observations from previously issued Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) material loss
review reports. In this report, we address the recurring and root causes for
the failure of 10 FDIC-supervised institutions subject to the material loss
review provisions of Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) section 38(k), Review Required When Deposit Insurance Fund Incurs Material
Loss. Section 38(k) provides that if a deposit insurance fund incurs a material
loss with respect to an insured depository institution on or after July 1, 1993,
the Inspector General of the appropriate federal banking agency shall prepare
a report to the banking agency. The 10 failed banks had combined assets of $3.2
billion at the time they failed. The combined estimated loss to the BIF totaled
about $584 million.
In accordance with the Act, our audit objectives for each material loss review
were to: (1) review the agency's supervision of the institution, including
the agency's implementation of FDI Act section 38, Prompt Corrective Action;
(2) ascertain why the institution's problems resulted in a material loss to
the insurance fund; and (3) make recommendations for preventing future material
losses.
The scope of this review included an analysis of the 10 statutorily-required
material loss reviews performed by the OIG since 1993. We reviewed each material
loss review report to determine the root causes of failure and to ascertain
whether there were any indicators of problems before the financial condition
of the bank deteriorated. We then aggregated the information to determine whether
there were any trends or common characteristics among the failed institutions.
Based on the objective of this audit, we did not conduct any new audit procedures
related to compliance with laws and regulations, internal control, or performance
measures and did not rely on computer-generated data. We performed this audit
from May through November 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
SUMMARY
Our material loss reviews disclosed that the major causes of failure were
inadequate corporate governance, poor risk management, and lack of risk diversification.
Bank management took risks that were not mitigated by systems to adequately
identify, measure, monitor, and most importantly, control the risks. As a result,
bank management did not adequately fulfill its responsibility to ensure that
the banks operated in a safe and sound manner. Although economic conditions
may have contributed to failure and the resulting material loss, the economy
was not the sole cause of failure. In fact, the financial condition of the
majority of the banks became dependent on the economy as a result of bank management
decisions.
The failed banks typically went through four stages:
1. Strategy the banks typically underwent a change in philosophy and
developed aggressive business plans usually in a high-risk lending niche. Characteristics
of a bank in this stage included emergence of a dominant person, lack of expertise
in the niche area, and high-risk lending with liberal underwriting and weak
internal controls.
2. Growth the banks appeared financially strong due to rapid growth
in their niche area. High levels of fee income were reported, but bank portfolios
were not sufficiently aged to show losses resulting from poor lending decisions
and weak credit administration. Violations of laws and regulations and insider
abuse occurred, and examiners concerns were not fully addressed. Poor
risk management and inadequate diversification were evident.
3. Deterioration the banks overall financial condition declined.
Characteristics of a bank in this stage included resistance to supervisory
concerns, overvaluation of assets, plateau or decline in earnings, inadequate
allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL), impaired capital, significant concentrations
of credit, and loan problems that were exacerbated when the economy declined.
4. Failing massive loan losses occurred, ALLL was severely deficient,
significant capital depletion occurred, enforcement actions were issued by
the FDIC, and key management officials departed. A massive capital infusion
was needed for the bank to survive.
OBSERVATIONS
Our analysis led to the following observations that may be of value to Division
of Supervision and Consumer Protection management and staff involved in planning
and conducting bank examinations:
- Failed banks often exhibit warning signs when they appear financially
strong.
- Financial condition is no guarantee of future performance.
- Failed banks frequently assume more risk than bank management is capable
of handling.
- An inattentive or passive board of directors is a precursor
to problems.
- Banks may reach a point at which problems become intractable
and supervisory
actions are of limited use.
The observations discussed in this report underscore one of the more difficult
challenges facing bank regulators today - limiting risk assumed by banks when
their profits and capital ratios make them appear financially strong. A critical
aspect of limiting risk is early corrective action by bank regulators in response
to bank examinations that identify potential problems and effects on a banks
condition. For example, if a bank is experiencing rapid growth, the effects
of poor underwriting in commercial real estate loans may not appear on the
banks financial statements until several months or even years after
the loans are made. Left uncorrected, poor underwriting could result in the
serious and intractable problems experienced by the banks we reviewed.
The FDIC has taken a number of steps to address these challenges through risk-focused
examination programs and risk-based capital requirements. Nevertheless, we
recognize that bank failures may never be eliminated and, in a free economy,
might even be necessary to cull the industry of marginal performers and excess
capacity.
CORPORATION COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION
On January 14, 2004, the DSC Director provided a written response to the draft
report. Prior to receiving the response, we made some changes to the report
to add perspective based on conversations we had with DSC officials. The response
is presented in Part III of this report. In its written response, DSC management
generally concurred with the reports observations and conclusions. Since
the report contains no formal recommendations, no further action is necessary
on the part of management.
|