Meet The 171 Banks For Which The Margin Of Failure Is One Thousand Dollars

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
macholatte's picture


Nice work.


Eternal Student's picture

Ditto. I'd also like to add one important thing which should be mentioned. If you want to see the health of your Bank, or find one which is in relatively good shape, the best resource on the net is here:

You can also use it for Credit Unions. And for amusement, you can look at some of the banks in this article, to see what a troubled bank looks like. From just a couple that I've seen, the FDIC used to be closing down banks which were in better shape a couple of years ago. Since then, the FDIC has seriously slacked off, and now these banks are operating with Troubled Asset Ratios which are way higher now.

Myself, I use Credit Unions. They are generally in better shape than the banks. And I look for one with a TAR that is much lower than the mean.

macholatte's picture

How about forming a ZH syndicate and buying up some of these "troubled" banks for 50% of asset value via a credit line from Benny like the Soros machine did with Indy Mac. No money out of pocket & No risk.

Harlequin001's picture

Just buy gold, and this won't matter...

Harlequin001's picture

'How about forming a ZH syndicate and buying up some of these "troubled" banks for 50% of asset value via a credit line...'

but seriously, these losses are not finished yet, so even at 50% discount I think you would probably lose your money...

Urban Redneck's picture

That is what FDIC loss sharing agreements are for.  One must be either extremely stupid or extremely reckless to lose money with a banking license.

chumbawamba's picture

I operate my own bank.  It's local and has one branch.  It has only one account.  On despoit are objects that are lustrous and dense.

You could consider me a community central bank of sorts.  Remember the golden rule.

I am Chumbawamba.

chumbawamba's picture

Fuck no!  First (And Only) Sovereign Bank of Chumbawamba is inherently solvent.  We do not require government oversight.

I am Chumbawamba.

TheMerryPrankster's picture

Do I get a toaster if I open a checking account?

knukles's picture

Do I get to get toasted if I open a checking account?

Snidley Whipsnae's picture

+1 I also use a Credit Union and have used the same one for almost 20 years.


Yen Cross's picture

The ambulance chaser is back.

Hephasteus's picture

Are you still mad that all the cool kids hate dollars.

Heroic Couplet's picture

Thank you. I've seen this website before and had forgotten about it; and I thought BoA and Wachovia would have caused enough trouble without the credit unions getting involved. All the credit unions in North Carolina are in trouble, including IBM's Coastal Federal Credit Union. Also would point out, under the North Carolina Credit Union tab, I noticed that the Y axis does not always have the same values; the X axis does.

DarthVaderMentor's picture

Coastal Federal Credit Union, although still having a large number of depositors with a past or current relationship to the Blue Pig is not longer carrying the IBM name, to my knowledge. When I asked an office manager a few years back, the response was that it does not have any formal relationship with IBM anymore.

DosZap's picture

An important bit of data left out of the FDIC Guarantee of $250 k per customer limit.

IF a bank bellies up, you could have to wait for a year or two to get THAT Insured money back.

It's not automatically back in your hands.

So, food for thought.

Also,one bank on the list in the DFW area that took 2B in bailout money, repaid it, and ar BACK over the mean.

They are in the swamp again.

Don Birnam's picture

Staying in the same church but just a different pew, the estimable Lawrence Yun, Chief Economist and Bottle Washer of the NAR ( although the man's " .gov love" tone would suggest a Deputy Assistant Secretary at HUD ), is on C-SPAN this morning, as this is written. As can be expected ( angry callers notwithstanding ), the worst is behind is all skittles and rainbows. Just give it a little more time, good homeowners.

Sancho Ponzi's picture

Couldn't they have gotten a grand from the neighborhood payday loan store?

chumbawamba's picture

I'm ignorant about this stuff, but I seem to recall that many banks were "forced" to take a loan even if they didn't need it, because the Fed wanted to save face for all the TBTF's by making everyone take a bailout so no one could be singled out.  Might these have been those banks?

I am Chumbawamba.

Eternal Student's picture

I believe that you're talking about TARP, and it was some of the TBTF's which were forced to sign up for it. Here's the article on Paulson forcing them:

The banks in this ZH article are too little to give a d*mn about, and probably weren't worth Paulson even thinking about.

But the very amusing thing with Tyler's article is something that isn't very well known about TARP. You see, not every bank could get a TARP loan. The Treasury actually rejected a number of the smaller banks, because the Treasury thought they weren't good enough to try to prop up.

Or, in otherwords, only the smaller banks that the Treasury thought were likely to survive got TARP money. Being rejected for TARP was a very bad snub.

This has been kept quiet mostly, because if you look at the above list, a number of the TARP recipients there have already failed. That's lost TARP money, and something you won't hear much about, because it's part of the failure of the TARP program. Not even the bankers can tell what is a good bank.

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

In the recent debacle, smaller banks that did the right thing, that were prudent, have been hosed, big banks that did not do the right thing, that engaged in the practices that created the housing bubble, that went all in assuming Uncle Sam would be there for them if they lost, have received generous rescue packages

MachoMan's picture

Also something that isn't talked about much...  the bank runs on smaller and regionals when tarp was announced...  causing risk averse smaller institutions to try and pony up to the tarp...  fdic raised their limits shortly after to help curb the run...

DosZap's picture


You sir are entirely correct.

Some banks that did NOT need bailing out, were FORCED to take loans.

No if's and's or but's. Why?, CONTROL.

Harlequin001's picture

hell, I could have loaned them that...

Twindrives's picture

Have them call Pimp Daddy Ben, he's got plenty of free fiat to go around for his banker buddies.

TruthInSunshine's picture

If you owe $1,000 to Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan, or their proxy, The Federal Reserve Crime Syndicate, they own you.

But if you owe over 30 billion to Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan, as AIG did, or their proxy, the Federal Reserve Crime Syndicate...

...they own you even harder and deeper!

*By own you, I mean they own the taxpayers, who are like...totally pwned.

Silver Alert's picture

Is it possible that they borrowed 1K just to be sure it worked and/or open up a line rather than needing only 1K to remain solvent?

Tyler Durden's picture

Virtually all of these banks borrowed repeatedly from the Discount Window, often for amounts also much greater than just $1,000. And if $1k was a test of the Discount Window for wire transfer purposes every single bank would have been required to do it, not just 171 banks.

Creed's picture

 And if $1k was a test of the Discount Window for wire transfer purposes every single bank would have been required to do it, not just 171 banks.



This does not follow, it assumes all banks march lockstep to the beat of the FED drummer.


There are 1,000's of banks and it would not surprise me in the least that a small portion of them would test funds availability IN CASE it were needed.


There is hyperbole in the assumption all these banks would fail for lack of 1k. Love ya man, but this is some fail here.

SamuelMaverick's picture

+1. My exact take on this .

AGoldhamster's picture

Add me too. Also A Tyler fan - bug also not smart enough to see the point!

Just 1000 bucks doens't make any sense at all.

Could as well be just another Maddoff scam too.

gkm's picture

Add me as well.  

You could make the suggestion that the banks that took 1k at least were worried enough to have to ensure the mechanisms worked smoothly so they could use the facility if needs be.  But then again, given where we were at the time, if you weren't worried then maybe you just didn't get it.  

Alternately, sometimes there is simply information to be gained by doing something.  Obviously not knowing the inner workings it is hard to surmise what that might be, but those who do know probably had some motive.

I'm not sure which TD this is but I'd have to say this is substandard.

Hephasteus's picture

Maybe there's a 171 banks that the fed forced to use the discount window for 1000 and were ordered to buy one 1000 hooker with the money. But to do it only once to show that they were dirty enough to be part of the criminal banking industry.

i-dog's picture

"to show that they were dirty enough to be part of the criminal banking industry"

Ding. Ding. Ding.

bugs_'s picture

171 banks worried enough about their own situation to get off their ass and "test the system".  Either way you look at it you still come to the same conclusion about the Team 171.

Blano's picture

I don't know, these could have been banks who have nevery done anything like this before unlike Goldman, JPM et al.

How many of these banks are on the problem list??  Seems like that would be more telling.

Selah's picture

to be sure it worked

Like this is some kind of mechanical linkage?

How can they be sure that it will "work" again without repeating the "test"?


knukles's picture

You mean like the ECB/EU stress tests?  Repeat it until you're sure somebody, somewhere, somehow, for some yet to be discovered reason thinks that it just has something of a farts chance in a windstorm of being something functionally, operatively somewhat right and possibly somehow works for some reason.

Milton Waddams's picture

I was wondering the same; perhaps this was a drill to test operational readiness.  I guess the way to find out is to determine when the $1000 transactions occurred within all transactions of a single bank.  In other words, do they represent the first transaction between the bank and the discount window, signaling a test of operational readiness, or the last, perhaps signaling something much worse.

New_Meat's picture

we just changed finance systems and the test was for $0.01/employee.  I'm sure that my organization will find a way to recover that vast wealth. - Ned

SimplePrinciple's picture

Capital One? I bet these banks are taking a token $1,000 with some arm twisting, just to show they are part of Team Bailout. I would not interpret this data to mean much of anything.

SignsAndWonders's picture

The obvious spin on this will be that banks were testing the discount window to make sure the hookup was good in case trouble came in the future.

CaptFufflePants's picture

Capital One Bk Usa Na
Capital One Na



SparkyvonBellagio's picture

I think it's time for some payback.

These Guys are Worst then Rapists/Murders,,,, Why?


Rapists/Murders (though it's horrible and truly tragic) only PHHHHHUCK WITH A HANDFUL.



I smell a Gold/Platinum ALLTIME WORLD RECORD.

Don't mess with the legitimate small town banks and hard working souls.

Heroic Couplet's picture

Excellent, but one point: what is "Coastal Fcu"? If it's IBM's Coastal "Federal Credit Union," the acronym needs to be clear "Coastal FCU."

Remember all the crap about "take your money out of banks and put it in a credit union, where it will be safe"? Agree that a credit union like IBM's may have just been testing out their ability to draw $1,000. May, may not have been the case.

ArsoN's picture

They were just testing their ability to draw funds.  Non issue.  

TruthInSunshine's picture

Well, many of you claiming this is a non-issue may be interested to know that many of these banks are indeed already vaporware. I count 5 just in my home state that are on this list.

That may or may not change the fact that some/all/a few of them were just doing a 'test access' of sorts.

I don't know whether this is true, or not.