Anyone Might Hypothetically Want To Work At A Theoretically Collapsing Bank Under Putative Government Scrutiny During Some Potential Future Financial Crisis TBD?

Anyone Might Hypothetically Want To Work At A Theoretically Collapsing Bank Under Putative Government Scrutiny During Some Potential Future Financial Crisis TBD?

If so, get your name on the FDIC’s list.
Author:
Publish date:

Unnamed photographer for Bain News ServiceDavid Shapinsky [Public domain]

Are you a former banker of some sort doing something else these days, or doing perhaps doing nothing at all? On the off chance that, when the economy next hits the skids, if the FDIC is forced to seize a bank that it’s not able to sell right away, might you have some interest in resuming your banking career for a few months at an institution in freefall before it gets sold, and you get to go back to not being a banker? Maybe a real shitshow like IndyMac? If so, shoot a resume over to USAJOBS and maybe, just maybe, if things get really, really, really bad, you’ll be in luck.

The regulator has interviewed dozens of bankers over the past two years or so in search of people qualified to serve as board members or executives at banks seized by the agency in the future, FDIC officials said….

In rare situations, no buyer can be found and the agency must run a bank on its own. These institutions are known as bridge banks and are meant to be temporary until a buyer or other permanent solution can be found…. Between 2008 and 2010, 322 banks with a total of $633.7 billion in assets failed. Just three of the failed lenders became bridge banks….

The recruits typically have prior banking experience but aren’t currently employed by a bank, the FDIC said. They aren’t subject to any binding commitments with the agency.

Help Wanted: Regulators Seek Executives to Staff Failed Banks [WSJ]

Related

News

Banks Prove That They Are Not Too Big To Fail By Saying "We Can Fail" On A Piece Of Paper, Moving On

One way you could spend this slow week is reading the "living wills" submitted by a bunch of banks telling regulators how to wind them up if they go under. Don't, though: they're about the most boring and least informative things imaginable and I am angry that I read them.* Here for instance is how JPMorgan would wind itself up if left to its own devices**: (1) It would just file for bankruptcy and stiff its non-deposit creditors (at the holding company and then, if necessary, at the bank). (2) If after stiffing its non-deposit creditors it didn't have enough money to pay its depositors it would sell its highly attractive businesses in a competitive sale to willing buyers who would pay top dollar. This seems wrong, no? And not just in the sense of "in my opinion that would be sort of difficult, what with people freaking out about JPMorgan going bankrupt and its highly attractive businesses having landing it in, um, bankruptcy." It's wrong in the sense that it's the opposite of having a plan for dealing with banks being "too big to fail": it's premised on an assumption that the bank is not too big to fail. If JPMorgan runs into trouble that it can't get out of without taxpayer support, it'll just file for bankruptcy like anybody else. Depositors will be repaid (if they're under FDIC limits); non-depositor creditors will be screwed just like they would be on a failure of Second Community Bank of Kenosha.