Home > About FDIC > Financial Reports > 2001 Annual Report




2001 Annual Report


Operations of the Corporation – The Year in Review

In the face of a changing banking and financial services industry, in 2001 the FDIC continued to protect the insurance funds, financial institutions and the banking public. Among the highlights:
  • The FDIC’s continued work with Congress on legislative proposals for deposit insurance reform;
  • New rules and procedures to address risks to institutions;
  • Expanded use of the Internet and other technologies to help the FDIC deal more efficiently with open and closed institutions;
  • A new Money Smart program to promote financial education for adults outside the financial mainstream; and
  • Continued cooperation among U.S. and foreign financial regulators to support financial stability around the world.

Photographs (top): On November 29, Chairman Powell’s (standing, right) press conference to issue the latest Preliminary Bank Earnings Report is broadcast on the Internet for the first time. (Bottom): The video images of the press conference are transmitted via satellite Webcast.

Top: On November 29, Chairman Powell’s (standing, right) press conference to issue the latest Preliminary Bank Earnings Report is broadcast on the Internet for the first time.

Bottom: The video images of the press conference are transmitted via satellite Webcast.

An overview of activity of the year follows.

Deposit Insurance Reform

The FDIC continued its comprehensive review of the deposit insurance system begun in 2000. In April 2001, the FDIC published a paper called Keeping the Promise: Recommendations for Deposit Insurance Reform. These recommendations were summarized in the FDIC’s 2000 Annual Report. Former Chairman Donna Tanoue testified in favor of the recommendations in 2001 before the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit on May 16 and before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on June 20.

Chairman Donald Powell also has expressed “full confidence” in the FDIC’s recommendations. On October 17, in testimony before the same Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, Chairman Powell added his thoughts on the deposit insurance reform recommendations:

First, the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) should be merged.

Second, the FDIC Board of Directors needs the flexibility to manage the fund. At present, there are two statutorily mandated methods for managing the size of the fund. One of these methods prohibits the FDIC from charging premiums to well-capitalized, well-rated institutions when a fund’s reserve ratio is at or above the 1.25 percent designated reserve ratio. This method effectively prevents the FDIC from charging appropriately for risk during good economic times. In 2001, for example, 92 percent of banks and thrifts paid nothing for deposit insurance. The other method can put undue pressure on the industry during an economic downturn because it mandates a minimum of 23 basis point premiums unless the fund’s reserve ratio returns to the 1.25 percent designated reserve ratio within one year. Together, the two existing methods of managing the fund can lead to volatile premiums. This makes the system pro-cyclical and could require the FDIC to charge the highest premiums during difficult economic times when the industry can least afford it. To correct these problems, the FDIC in 2001 recommended to Congress that the Board have the discretion to:

  • Set the target size for the fund ratio and determine how quickly to bring the fund back toward the target. The current 1.25 percent target would be a reasonable starting point for the target size.

  • Price deposit insurance according to risk. Because all banks and thrifts pose some risk, all should pay premiums, regardless of the fund’s level. Adjustments to the FDIC’s current assessment system would be needed to allow the FDIC to properly differentiate for risk. Whenever possible, the FDIC would use objective factors to distinguish institutions and price for risk.

  • Give assessment credits or cash rebates, if the fund grows too large, and levy surcharges in a crisis. Chairman Powell expressed reluctance to mandate an initial cash payment out of the fund, given the uncertain economic environment. He recommended, instead, giving banks a credit toward future assessments. These credits should be based on past contributions to the fund, not on the current assessment base. This would avoid artificial incentives for growth and provide the largest credits to those institutions that built the funds to where they stand today. Going forward, newer institutions and fast-growing institutions would also earn a right to share in the assessment credits as they pay into the fund.

Third, the basic coverage level of $100,000 need not be raised immediately, but should be indexed to maintain its value. Chairman Powell suggested using the Consumer Price Index and adjusting the limit every five years, beginning January 1, 2005. Adjustments to the level should be in round numbers and the limit should not decline if the price level falls. Congress should also consider raising the insurance limit for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and Keogh accounts.

The FDIC will continue working with Congress on these deposit insurance reform recommendations.

Photograph: Linda Reedy from the Division of Supervision's New York Regional Office was among the more than 200 instructors preparing assistant bank examiners to become commissioned examiners.

Linda Reedy from the Division of Supervision's New York Regional Office was among the more than 200 instructors preparing assistant bank examiners to become commissioned examiners.

Responding to Emerging Risks

The four federal bank and thrift regulators amended the capital standards for recourse arrangements, direct credit substitutes and residual interests in asset securitizations. The final rule will ensure that the amount of regulatory capital that institutions must hold against credit enhancements and securitization positions will better match their relative exposure to credit risk. It will also result in more consistent regulatory capital treatment for securitization transactions involving similar risk. Among the rule’s highlights is the use of external ratings for setting risk-based capital requirements for most asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities, and the establishment of new standards for residual interests, a subordinated asset class that exposes institutions to a higher level of credit risk than traditional bank assets. Transactions settling on or after January 1, 2002, are subject to the new rule. Institutions have until December 31, 2002, to apply the new rule to transactions that settled before January 1, 2002.

To focus on technology risks that may jeopardize a safe and sound banking environment, the FDIC is realigning its supervisory strategies. During 2001, traditional financial services continued to be altered by advances in Internet banking, online bill payment and presentment, electronic funds transfers and other sophisticated technologies. These advancements have allowed financial institutions to expand and enhance customer service and take advantage of improved operational efficiencies. However, the industry’s growing reliance on technologies, particularly the Internet, has changed the risk profile of the banking industry. Banks especially are exposed to risks from technologies being misused by criminals. The rapid growth of technology has dictated a need for improved monitoring and risk assessment by the FDIC. As a result, the agency began several strategic initiatives aimed at improving its approach to identifying, assessing and monitoring technology risks, such as:

  • Developing ongoing risk assessment and monitoring systems to be able to proactively identify technology risks that impact the banking system;
  • Expanding mechanisms to effectively communicate technology risk information to the FDIC workforce and to the financial industry; and
  • Ensuring that examiners receive advanced training and have state-of-the-art tools for focusing examination efforts on technology risks, as required.

Finally, to improve and streamline the examination process, the FDIC in 2001 initiated a major review of examination and other supervisory methodologies. Five study groups—soliciting input from within the FDIC and from other federal and state bank regulators—evaluated the examination process and policies, and came up with numerous recommendations. One of the most significant recommendations was to revise the report of examination to enhance the presentation of examination findings and focus more on key risk areas. The revisions with implementing instructions were completed in October 2001. A second recommendation was to enhance the General Examination System (GENESYS) software, used in preparing the safety and soundness report of examination, in order to improve, among other things, data flow and the software’s compatibility with other systems. This recommendation was implemented in the second quarter of 2002. Another recommendation under review was to increase delegations of authority to improve workflow through the FDIC’s regional offices.

FDIC Examinations 1999-2001

  2001 2000 1999
Safety and Soundness:
State Nonmember Banks 2,300 2,232 2,289
Savings Banks 241 235 241
National Banks 16 17 3
State Member Banks 9 2 7
Savings Associations 0 0 0
Subtotal 2,566 2,486 2,540
Compliance/Community Reinvestment Act 2,180 2,257 2,368
Trust Departments 466 533 452
Data Processing Facilities 1,625 1,585 1,446
Total 6,837 6,861 6,806

Liquidation Highlights 1999-2001
Dollars in Billions
  2001 2000 1999
Total Failed Banks 3 6 7
Assets of Failed Banks $.05 $.38 $1.42
Total Failed Savings Associations 1 1 1
Assets of Failed Savings Associations $2.18 $.03 $.06
Net Collections from Assets in Liquidation 1 $.31 $.60 $.98
Total Assets in Liquidation 1 $.57 $.54 $1.98
Net Collections from Assets Not in Liquidation 1 $.08 $.16 $.21
Total Assets Not in Liquidation 1 $1.52 $2.80 $5.20
1 Also includes assets from thrifts resolved by the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation.

Using Technology to Operate More Efficiently

In 2001, the FDIC continually looked toward technology advancements to conduct its business more efficiently, primarily in terms of dealing with bank examinations and open and closed institutions.

The FDIC has made significant progress over the past few years improving its offsite monitoring systems to identify evolving risks within the industry and at individual institutions. This progress has been achieved by applying new technology and combining economists’ expertise with examiners’ experience. Offsite monitoring, for example, uses statistical models and screens to identify “outliers”—institutions with atypically high-risk profiles among those in the best-rated premium category. It allows the FDIC to detect risk early to reduce vulnerabilities to the insurance funds.

The FDIC also uses offsite monitoring and risk data for a number of other supervisory and insurance purposes. For example, risk data are reviewed by examiners as part of their pre-examination activity. The FDIC’s Financial Risk Committee also uses risk data in recommending reserve levels for the funds. To further improve FDIC risk identification, a number of recommendations were made in 2001 including improving and enhancing analysis of risks within large banking organizations and de novo (new) institutions. These systems will also support the agency’s goal of improved pricing of deposit insurance premiums, which is included in the FDIC’s April 2001 Keeping the Promise: Recommendations for Deposit Insurance Reform.

For the first time, the FDIC in 2001 used the Internet to sell the deposits and assets of a failing institution. This process marks a significant departure from the FDIC’s normal procedure of selling the assets and deposits of failing institutions by inviting several hundred potential bidders to a meeting near the failing bank, and only those attending would then obtain the confidential information necessary to complete the bidding process. The Internet was used for all four failures in 2001.

First Alliance Bank and Trust Company, Manchester, New Hampshire, with assets of $16.8 million, was the first failing bank to be marketed by the FDIC on the Internet. Interested parties were registered and given a unique password to gain access to a secure Web site containing the confidential bidding information and materials. Potential bidders avoided the time and expense of attending the bidders meeting and had immediate and around-the-clock access to information about the failing bank and the bidding process.

The largest failing institution to be sold on the Internet was Superior Bank, FSB, Hinsdale, Illinois, with total assets of $2.2 billion. Its assets and insured deposits were transferred to a newly chartered savings bank (New Superior) and placed into conservatorship under FDIC management. After marketing New Superior on a secured Web site, the FDIC approved the sale of the branches and deposits to Charter One Bank, FSB, Cleveland, Ohio. The vast majority of New Superior’s assets, however, were retained by the conservator to be marketed later. The FDIC turned to the Internet to sell the bulk of the assets, and as of early spring 2002, only about $550 million of loans were left to sell.

With the success of selling failed banks on the Web, the FDIC expanded the use of the Internet to include selling the assets (primarily residential and commercial loans) from existing receiverships. Potential investors are able to download encrypted loan and payment information and then submit a sealed bid or participate in a live electronic auction where all bidders can see the high bid and who submitted it. The FDIC has been using these improved systems to attract new potential bidders and increase competition, and thereby increase sales prices for deposits and assets. Also, in an attempt to find the owners of abandoned deposits that can accumulate at failed banks, the FDIC created a Web page to allow users to search a database of unclaimed funds from failed financial institutions. This page was launched in late August and in the first six months of operations assisted 84 people in finding $264,212.

Compliance, Enforcement and Other Related Legal Actions 1999-2001

  2001 2000 1999
Total Number of Actions Initiated by the FDIC 144 87 110
Termination of Insurance
Involuntary Termination
Sec. 8a for Violations, Unsafe/Unsound Practices or Condition 0 1 0
Voluntary Termination
Sec. 8a By Order Upon Request 0 0 0
Sec. 8p No Deposits 4 6 3
Sec. 8q Deposits Assumed 6 5 9
Sec. 8b Cease-and-Desist Actions
Notices of Charges Issued 3 4 1 5
Consent Orders 33 26 19
Sec. 8e Removal/Prohibition of Director or Officer
Notices of Intention to Remove/Prohibit 4 3 2 4
Consent Orders 11 17 22
Sec. 8g Suspension/Removal When Charged With Crime 0 0 3
Civil Money Penalties Issued
Sec. 7a Call Report Penalties 4 3 15
Sec. 8i Civil Money Penalties 71 11 20
Sec. 10c Orders of Investigation 7 7 4
Sec. 19 Denials of Service After Criminal Conviction 0 1 2 3
Sec. 32 Notices Disapproving Officer/Director's Request for Review 0 0 1
Truth in Lending Act Reimbursement Actions
Denials of Requests for Relief 1 0 1
Grants of Relief 0 0 0
Banks Making Reimbursement 4 189 127 134
Suspicious Activity Reports  (Open and closed institutions) 4 28,750 20,720 22,015
Other Actions Not Listed 0 3 2
1 Two actions included Sec. 8 (c) temporary orders.

2 One action included a Sec. 8 (e) suspension order.

3 One action involved a denial of request to waive 10-year ban under Sec. 19 (a) (2).

4 These actions do not constitute the initiation of a formal enforcement action and, therefore, are not included in the total number of actions inititated.

Consumer Protection

In its role of enforcing bank compliance with consumer protection laws and educating bankers and consumers on banking-related issues, the FDIC took a number of actions this year.

In July, the FDIC unveiled a significant initiative—called Money Smart—to promote and facilitate financial education. The Money Smart curriculum was specifically designed to help adults outside the financial mainstream develop positive relationships with insured depository institutions. The instructor-led program helps explain basic financial terms, products and services. The FDIC developed a partnership with the U.S. Department of Labor to make the Money Smart program available to more than 800 employment centers, called One Stop Career Centers, and through financial institutions and community-based groups. As of year-end, more than 5,000 orders for the curriculum were filled, including requests from more than 2,000 financial institutions. Money Smart has received outstanding reviews from bankers, consumers and other participants. For instance, one graduate in California who previously experienced serious credit problems said she “won’t make those mistakes again” because of the Money Smart program. “Thank you so much for helping me be money smart, not money stupid.”

The FDIC joined the other federal banking agencies in a full review of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to evaluate the effectiveness of major CRA revisions completed in 1995. The agencies want to determine whether the 1995 evaluation standards have effectively emphasized performance over process, promoted consistency in CRA evaluations, and eliminated unnecessary burden. Through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in July 2001, the agencies also sought public comment on whether, and to what extent, the CRA regulations should be revised. The FDIC received almost 300 comments, which will be carefully considered in shaping future actions.

  Photograph: Nelson Hernandez joined the FDIC's Division of Compliance and Consumer Affairs to coordinate the agency's national community reinvestment, community development and outreach efforts.

 

Nelson Hernandez joined the FDIC's Division of Compliance and Consumer Affairs to coordinate the agency's national community reinvestment, community development and outreach efforts.

New requirements for financial institutions concerning the privacy of consumer financial information took effect on July 1, 2001. The privacy regulation (Part 332 of FDIC’s Rules and Regulations) implements provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The regulation requires financial institutions to issue notices to consumers explaining their privacy policies and, in some cases, provide consumers an opportunity to “opt out” or say “no” to certain information-sharing with third parties. The FDIC issued several significant pieces of guidance to foster compliance with the new privacy requirements. For example, the FDIC: published the Privacy Rule Handbook designed to help state nonmember banks prepare for the July 1 mandatory compliance date; joined the other federal banking regulatory agencies in distributing privacy examination procedures; distributed an interagency CD-ROM to FDIC-supervised institutions that included multimedia presentations on the privacy rule and other privacy-related resources; and issued “Frequently Asked Questions,” an interagency document covering almost every aspect of the regulation.

To help banks and consumers understand their rights and responsibilities under the new privacy regulation, the FDIC engaged in a variety of outreach activities. Throughout the year, FDIC speakers appeared at trade association conferences and meetings to discuss the new regulatory requirements, and participated in interagency seminars for community bankers. The Corporation also participated in an interagency public workshop held December 4 in Washington, DC, discussing effective privacy notices. Articles designed to answer consumers’ questions about privacy policies and opt-out rights appeared in the Winter 2000/2001 and the Summer 2001 issues of the quarterly newsletter FDIC Consumer News.

Photograph: George Hanc (right), Chair of the Research Committee supporting the Working Group on Deposit Insurance--comprising representatives from 12 countries, the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank--and committee members (l to r) Rose Kushmeider, Christine Blair and Detta Voesar.

George Hanc (right), Chair of the Research Committee supporting the Working Group on Deposit Insurance—comprising representatives from 12 countries, the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank—and committee members (l to r) Rose Kushmeider, Christine Blair and Detta Voesar.

International Efforts

As a member of the Financial Stability Forum’s Working Group on Deposit Insurance, the FDIC contributes to global efforts to establish or improve deposit insurance systems. The Financial Stability Forum was created in 1999 by the finance ministers and other officials of the G-7 industrial nations as a way to promote international financial stability through information exchange and international cooperation. The Working Group, comprising representatives of 12 countries, the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank, was established in 2000 to develop guidance for countries seeking to establish or reform a deposit insurance system. In 2001, the FDIC chaired and provided staff to the research committee, which assisted the Working Group in deliberating and developing guidance. FDIC staff worked with finance ministers, bank regulators and deposit insurance officials from various countries to develop and refine guidelines that were flexible enough to be useful for countries with different banking and legal systems. The Working Group’s final report, Guidance for Establishing Effective Deposit Insurance Systems, was presented to the Financial Stability Forum in September 2001, and is available on the FDIC’s Web site at www.fdic.gov.

The FDIC, as a member of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, is continuing to work with U.S. and foreign supervisors on developing a revised Capital Adequacy Framework for internationally active banks. A revised Basel Capital Accord will be more risk-sensitive in measuring the capital adequacy of internationally active banks in the U.S. and overseas. The FDIC also served as technical advisor to the U.S. Treasury Department on several global initiatives, including developing anti-money-laundering programs. As part of its outreach efforts, the FDIC designed a training program for foreign banking regulators on bank supervision, deposit insurance and problem bank resolution.

The FDIC is taking the lead among the bank regulatory agencies in implementing a new international standard for exchanging financial data called Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL). In 2001, the FDIC, as the regulatory chair of the international financial reporting standards body developing XBRL, participated in three international conferences to design a technical specification that can significantly improve the precision and timeliness of financial reporting. The FDIC is consulting with international accountancy, regulatory and industry representatives and working to promote understanding about potential uses of this financial data exchange standard.

FDIC Applications 1999-2001

  2001 2000 1999
Deposit Insurance 133 205 295
Approved 133 205 295
Denied 0 0 0
New Branches 1,010 1,286 1,347
Approved 1,010 1,286 1,347
Denied 0 0 0
Mergers 266 316 341
Approved 266 316 341
Denied 0 0 0
Requests for Consent to Serve 1 231 249 210
Approved 231 248 207
Section 19 19 15 41
Section 32 212 233 166
Denied 0 1 3
Section 19 0 1 1
Section 32 0 0 2
Notices of Change in Control 21 28 31
Letters of Intent Not to Disapprove 21 28 31
Disapproved 0 0 0
Brokered Deposit Waivers 21 25 16
Approved 21 25 16
Denied 0 0 0
Savings Association Activities 2 76 80 83
Approved 76 80 83
Denied 0 0 0
State Bank Activities/Investments 3 29 36 24
Approved 29 36 24
Denied 0 0 0
Conversions of Mutual Institutions 4 8 16
Non-Objection 4 8 15
Objection 0 0 1
1 Under Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, an insured institution must receive FDIC approval before employing a person convicted of dishonesty or breach of trust. Under Section 32, the FDIC must approve any changes of directors or senior executive officers at a state nonmember bank that is not in compliance with capital requirements or is otherwise in troubled condition.

2 Amendments to Part 303 of FDIC Rules and Regulations changed FDIC oversight responsibility in October 1998.

3 Section 24 of the FDI Act, in general, precludes an insured state bank from engaging in an activity not permissible for a national bank and requires notices to be filed with the FDIC.

Consumer Complaints and Inquiries

The FDIC investigates and responds to consumer complaints of unfair or deceptive acts or practices by financial institutions and allegations that a bank has violated a consumer protection law or regulation. The agency also responds to inquiries from consumers, financial institutions, and other parties about consumer protection and fair lending matters and deposit insurance.

In 2001, the FDIC received 4,141 written consumer complaints against state-chartered nonmember banks. The agency tracks the volume and nature of complaints to monitor trends and identify emerging issues. Nearly 60 percent of these complaints concerned credit card accounts. The most frequent complaints involved billing disputes and account errors, loan denials, credit card fees and service charges, and collection practices.

The FDIC also received 3,024 written inquiries from consumers and 390 written inquiries from bankers regarding FDIC insurance and consumer protection issues. The Corporation received more than 46,000 telephone inquiries related to deposit insurance. The largest percentage of inquiries related to whether specific financial institutions were insured by the FDIC and questions about deposit insurance coverage. Other common inquiries were requests for copies of FDIC consumer publications, questions about banking practices and consumers’ rights under federal consumer protection laws, and matters related to obtaining a personal credit report.

The FDIC Reacts to the September 11 Terrorist Attacks

The terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, shook the country and the world. Among the fallout, the tragedy jolted business and consumer confidence, impairing economic activity in virtually every region of the country. The banking industry and others near “Ground Zero”—the site of the attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York—responded with remarkable resiliency to maintain the continuity of the financial system. What many Americans do not know is how the FDIC and other bank regulatory agencies reacted during the crisis to ensure the continuity of their operations and the stability of the banking system.

With the evacuation of the New York Regional Office, located just six blocks from the World Trade Center, the FDIC faced significant operational challenges, yet contingency planning and interagency coordination enabled the FDIC to resume in a timely manner all of its crucial business in New York from two satellite offices in New Jersey. Interim contact information was posted on the FDIC’s public Web site. The New York Regional Office reopened on September 17.

Photograph: On September 28, Chairman Powell visited the staff of the FDIC's New York Regional Office in Manhattan to address their concerns following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center just a few weeks before.

On September 28, Chairman Powell visited the staff of the FDIC's New York Regional Office in Manhattan to address their concerns following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center just a few weeks before.

In the days and weeks following the attacks, the New York staff actively monitored the operational and financial condition of depository institutions in the region. FDIC headquarters staff, along with the other federal banking regulators and the state chartering authorities, monitored the attacks’ impact on the banking system, particularly the payment settlement mechanisms. Immediate concerns about the continued operations of affected institutions were constantly monitored, and senior officials at the regulatory agencies were briefed daily until crucial services for clearing and settling transactions were restored. Liquidity concerns nationwide were monitored through daily conference calls between the various regional offices of each of the agencies until the situation had stabilized and concerns had been mitigated. In conjunction with other bank regulators, the FDIC assessed the long-term impact of these events on the U.S. banking industry. The FDIC also issued supervisory guidance to the industry similar to guidance normally issued when natural disasters occur, and encouraged FDIC-supervised institutions to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of terrorist activity.

Following the terrorist attacks, economists and financial analysts in the eight FDIC regional offices worked with their counterparts in Washington to stay abreast of regional and national economic developments and to evaluate their likely effects on the banking system. FDIC staff delivered a report to the FDIC Board of Directors on October 9 detailing the effects on the banking industry up to that time. A summary of that report was published in the FDIC’s fourth quarter Regional Outlook. The third quarter 2001 edition of the FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile, which provides a comprehensive analysis of banking industry statistics and trends, included the supplement “How the Banking Industry Has Responded to Crises.” This piece chronicled the history of bank performance indicators during previous historical periods of national and international crisis.

Rick Womble, the FDIC's Chief of Disaster Preparedness, at the agency's primary evacuation center, the Virginia Square facility in Arlington, VA. Photograph: Rick Womble, the FDIC's Chief of Disaster Preparedness, at the agency's primary evacuation center, the Virginia Square facility in Arlington, VA.

 

To support rebuilding in New York and Washington following the terrorist attacks, the FDIC announced on October 4 that it will give the banks it supervises credit under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) when they lend for reconstruction. CRA has always encouraged banks to lend and provide other services to the entire community in which they do business, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The FDIC wanted to make it clear, however, that banks that lend and otherwise support this rebuilding can expect to receive favorable consideration for these efforts during CRA examinations.



PREVIOUS | NEXT | CONTENTS | FDIC HOME

Last Updated 10/30/2002

communications@fdic.gov