The media and the Administration are already out there spinning the results of the stress tests.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they say that all banks “passed.” But the real suckers would be those who invest in this “bump” in the market before another drop this summer.  The banks are still not viable and many are being propped up by distortions in their books and “funny money.”  If the results were great in the first place, the government would not have delayed the release of the reports.  I wonder if the politicians on Capitol Hill really think we are that dumb!?  Roubini, a noted economist and known as Dr. Doom, has been correct on most of his statements about the markets and about banks – he says the following:

The spin machine about the banks’ stress test is already in full motion. Some banking regulators have already served up–to The New York Times–their spin that all 19 banks that are subject to the stress test will pass it. In other words, not one will fail.

But let’s look at the actual data. The macro data for the first quarter on the three variables used in the stress tests–growth rate, unemployment rate and home-price depreciation–are already worse than those in the U.S. government baseline scenario for 2009. They are, in fact, even worse than those for the stressed scenario for 2009.

The government used assumptions for the macro variables in 2009 and 2010 that are so optimistic that the actual data for 2009 are already worse than the adverse scenario. As for some crucial variables, such as the unemployment rate–key to proper estimates of default and recovery rates for residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, student loans and other banks loans–the current trend shows that by the end of 2009 the unemployment rate will be higher than the average unemployment rate assumed in the more adverse scenario for 2010, not for 2009. Put plainly, the results of the stress test–even before they are published–are not worth the paper on which they are written.

Let us look at how the stress tests are done. According to the U.S. government, there are two scenarios: a more optimistic “baseline scenario” for 2009 and 2010 for the three macro variables (gross domestic product, unemployment and home prices); and a more pessimistic “alternative adverse scenario.”

The baseline scenario assumes–based on the average of the forecasts by the consensus of macro forecasters at the time when the stress tests were announced–that GDP growth will be -2.1% in 2009 and 2% in 2010; that the unemployment rate will average 8.4% in 2009 and 8.8% in 2010; and that home prices will fall 14% in 2009 and 4% in 2010. In the alternative adverse scenario, GDP growth is assumed to be -3.3% in 2009 and 0.5% in 2010; the unemployment rate is assumed to average 8.9% in 2009 and 10.3% in 2010; and home prices are assumed to fall 20% in 2009 and 7% in 2010.

The description provided by the government of the stress test also shows graphs–but not actual figures–for the quarterly behavior of the three macro variables in 2009 and 2010 for both scenarios. Based on these quarterly graphs, in the first quarter of 2009 the unemployment rate would approximately average 7.7% in the baseline scenario and 7.8% in the adverse scenario; the GDP growth rate would be -1.9% in the baseline scenario and -2.1 in the adverse scenario; and home prices would fall 4% in the baseline scenario and by 7% in the adverse scenario.

How do these scenarios actually stack against actual figures for the first quarter of 2009, with current consensus forecasts and with current likely paths for these macro variables?

Read the rest of the bad news at Forbes…

Share on Facebook

Despite some decent profit reportings for the first quarter for some larger financial institutions, there are still a lot of small banks that are facing hardships and are being seized, sometimes in the middle of the night, by the FDIC.  Below are just two of the latest:

Bank regulators closed American Sterling Bank bank on Friday, the 24th U.S. bank to fail this year as the struggling economy and falling home prices take their toll on financial institutions.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp said Missouri-based American Sterling had $181 million in assets and $171.9 million in deposits. The failure is expected to cost the FDIC deposit insurance fund an estimated $42 million.

The Missouri offices of American Sterling will reopen on Saturday, and the offices in California and Arizona will reopen on Monday as branches of Metcalf Bank, which is assuming all the deposits of American Sterling.

Customers can access their money over the weekend by check, teller machine or debit card, the FDIC said.

And…

Bank regulators closed Great Basin Bank of Nevada on Friday, the 25th U.S. bank to fail this year as the struggling economy and falling home prices take their toll on financial institutions.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp said Great Basin had assets of $270.9 million and $221.4 million in deposits. The failure is expected to cost the FDIC deposit insurance fund an estimated $42 million.

Nevada State Bank agreed to assume the insured deposits of Great Basin, whose five branches will reopen on Monday as branches of Nevada State Bank.

For a more in depth look at aspects of the FDIC see Biggest Bank Failure of 2009.

Share on Facebook

New Frontier Bank, one of Colorado state’s biggest banks, was closed down by state regulators, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said in a statement.

Based in Greeley, Colorado, New Frontier had, as of March 24, total assets of two billion dollars and and total deposits of about 1.5 billion, the FDIC said.

It was the 23rd bank closed to business since January. Until New Frontier, the biggest bank failure this year had been California’s Merced Bank, with 1.7 billion in assets.

Unable to have a rival bank take charge of New Frontier’s credits and deposits, the FDIC said it “created the Deposit Insurance National Bank of Greeley (DINB), which will remain open for approximately 30 days to allow depositors time to open accounts at other insured institutions.”

New Frontier’s failure will cost the FDIC around 670 million dollars.

After suffering no bank failures at all in 2005 and 2006, the US banking system saw three banks going under in 2007, followed by 25 in 2008 and 23 so far this year.

Now the question is – what will this news do to the markets on Monday and what does the cash on hand at the FDIC look like these days?

In February, 2006, George w. Bush signed into law the FDIRA, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act which merged the old Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) together under one fund called the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF).  Having the funds separate created much of the turmoil in the 80′s with the savings and Loan (S&L) crisis.

A March 2008 memorandum to the FDIC Board of Directors shows a 2007 year-end Deposit Insurance Fund balance of about $52.4 billion, which represented a reserve ratio of 1.22% of its exposure to insured deposits totaling about $4.29 trillion. The 2008 year-end insured deposits were projected to reach about $4.42 trillion with the reserve growing to $55.2 billion, a ratio of 1.25%.

As of June 2008, the DIF had a balance of $45.2 billion. Bank failures typically represent a cost to the DIF because FDIC, as receiver of the failed institution, must liquidate assets that have declined substantially in value while at the same time making good on the institution’s deposit obligations. In July 2008, IndyMac Bank failed and was placed into receivership. The failure was initially projected by the FDIC to cost the DIF between $4 billion and $8 billion, but shortly thereafter the FDIC revised its estimate upward to $8.9 billion. Due to the failures of IndyMac and other banks, the DIF fell in the second quarter of 2008 to $45.2 billion. The decline in the insurance fund’s balance caused the reserve ratio (fund’s balance divided by the insured deposits) to fall to 1.01 percent as at 30 June 2008, down from 1.19 percent in the prior quarter. Once the ratio falls below below 1.15 percent, FDIC is required to develop a restoration plan to replenish the fund, which is expected to involve requiring higher contributions from banks which deal in riskier activities.

In light of apparent systemic risks facing the banking system, the adequacy of FDIC’s financial backing has come into question. Beyond the funds in the Deposit Insurance Fund above and the FDIC’s power to charge insurance premia, FDIC insurance is additionally assured by the Federal government. According to the FDIC.gov website (as of January 2009), “FDIC deposit insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government”. This means that the resources of the United States government stand behind FDIC-insured depositors.” The statutory basis for this claim is less than clear. Congress, in 1987, passed a non-binding resolution to this effect, but there appear to be no laws strictly binding the government to make good on any insurance liabilities unmet by the FDIC.

Insurance Qualifications

To receive this benefit, member banks must follow certain liquidity and reserve requirements. Banks are classified in five groups according to their risk-based capital ratio:

-Well capitalized: 10% or higher
-Adequately capitalized: 8% or higher
-Undercapitalized: less than 8%
-Significantly undercapitalized: less than 6%
-Critically undercapitalized: less than 2%

When a bank becomes undercapitalized the FDIC issues a warning to the bank. When the number drops below 6% the FDIC can change management and force the bank to take other corrective action. When the bank becomes critically undercapitalized the FDIC declares the bank insolvent and can take over management of the bank.

As the balance of the FDIC gets depleted the “backing from the government” means that the taxpayers will be held accountable.

Share on Facebook

The Great Depression brought various methods to the fold in order to keep some type of currency flowing and people consuming.  In many ways this is being called the “Great Recession,” and there still is that feeling in the air that a Great Depression may again be heading our way.  However, some of these old systems such as the barter system or local currencies are being used again. 

The barter system became popular in recent years and has become more modernized for today’s society.  Craigslist became incredibly popular when it first began but during these pressing times, Ebay and Craigslist have seen more traffic than usual and one statistic earlier this month had the traffic for Craigslist up by 100%. New barter sites are popping up during this downturn such as www.tradeaway.comwhere you can sell and buy real estate, boats, cars, land, etc.  Even Match.com’s traffic has soared, because young people who may or may not be let go first if a company needs to downsize (due to less tenure on the job) say that dating sites are cheaper than going out to bars to meet people. 

I find it incredibly intriguing that local communities have begun using a method from the Great Depression in which they issue and name their own “currency.” 

The systems generally work like this: Businesses and individuals form a network to print currency. Shoppers buy it at a discount — say, 95 cents for $1 value — and spend the full value at stores that accept the currency.

Workers with dwindling wages are paying for groceries, yoga classes and fuel with Detroit Cheers, Ithaca Hours in New York, Plenty in North Carolina or BerkShares in Massachusetts.

This type of currency encourages consumers to buy and it also encourages consumption at a local level to support local businesses that are also cash-strapped.

This could be a good thing for people to see value in limited government.  Local and state government, or Federalism, is truly the more appropriate form of government rather than a larger centralized organization.

However, you still have to pay your taxes on it…

By law, local money may not resemble federal bills or be promoted as legal tender of the United States, says Claudia Dickens of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

“We print the real thing,” she says.

The IRS gets its share. When someone pays for goods or services with local money, the income to the business is taxable, says Tom Ochsenschlager of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. “It’s not a way to avoid income taxes, or we’d all be paying in Detroit dollars,” he says.

Many still feel that bad times are ahead for the United States, our economy and the dollar.

George Soros is echoing what many conservatives and libertarians have been saying the past few months with the incessant government spending and bailouts.  He foresees the U.S. becoming much like Japan in the 90′s, where they continued to spend in order to try and dig themselves out of a collapse, and their interventionist policies actually made things worse.  Soros said that he believes the United States will go throw a period of relatively low growth coupled with high inflation…DUH!

Thank you Captain Obvious!

The recovery will look like “an inverted square root sign,” Soros said. “You hit bottom and you automatically rebound some, but then you don’t come out of it in a V-shape recovery or anything like that. You settle down—step down.”

“I don’t expect the U.S. economy to recover in the third or fourth quarter so I think we are in for a pretty lasting slowdown,” Soros said, adding that in 2010 there might be “something” in terms of U.S. growth.

The healing of the banking system and housing markets is crucial to recovery. “The banking system, as a whole, is basically insolvent,” Soros said.

“What we have created now is a situation where the banks who will be able to earn their way out of a hole, but by doing that, they are going to weigh on the economy,” he said. “Instead of stimulating the economy, they will draw the lifeblood, so to speak, of profits away from the real economy in order to keep themselves alive. This is the zombie bank situation.”

We have created zombie banks – much like liberal policies and politics create populations of zombies.

I don’t think that Soroshas America’s best interests at heart but I will concede to the fact that the man is an incredibly savvy investor and knows finance.

However, what Soros states above in regards to our economy, comes as no surprise to me - but it’s what he said about the U.S. dollar that tends to leave me more shocked and awed.

“I think the dollar is now under question and I think the system will need to be reformed, so that the United States will be subject to the same discipline as is imposed on other countries,” said Soros, whose famous bet against the British pound earned his Quantum Fund $1 billion in 1992. “Being the main issuer of international currency, we have been exempt and we have abused that because we have effectively consumed 6.5 percent more than we have produced. That is now coming to an end.”

China recently proposed greater use of Special Drawing Rights, possibly as an eventual global reserve currency. “In the long run, having an international accounting unit rather than the dollar may, in fact, be to our advantage so we can’t splurge—you know, it felt very good for 25 years but now we are paying a very heavy price,” Soros said.

Who would hold the main reserve currency though, if the dollar was in fact dumped?  Would China pick up the tab?  They are still up and coming and would not be able to carry the world on it’s back quite yet and be able to bailout the rest of the world when crises hit specific countries.  We have wiped debt off of other countrys’ books, we have aided and funded breakouts, wars, national stabilization efforts after wars, all on our dime, and what have these other countries done?  Do they want that responsibility heaped on them?  Maybe they should – so they can understand how difficult it is actually being the lone superpower in the world.  “Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.”  The global governments, just like all other policy makers, are incredibly short-sided and do not analyze the fall-out from their actions.  I think they need take a few classes on long range strategic planning.

However, as with any and all politicians, the long range strategic plan and long-term analysis of possible consequences was overlooked, and the G20 Summit only moved us closer to a new global currency and one world government.

“We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity,” it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.

In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global “quantitative easing”. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.

But Mr Strauss-Kahn at least has resources fit for his own task. He will need them. The IMF is already bailing out Pakistan, Iceland, Latvia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Bosnia and Romania. This week Mexico became the first G20 state to ask for help. It has secured a precautionary credit line of $47bn.

And who do you think makes up most of the money in the IMF?  This is percentage based – based upon the strongest world economies, therefore the United States makes up most of the IMF.  Let’s take a look (highest to lowest):

Country   Percentage
United States  17.09%
Japan   6.13%
Germany   5.99%
France   4.94%
United Kingdom  4.94%
China   3.72%
Italy   3.25%
Saudi Arabia  3.21%
Canada   2.93%
Russia   2.74%
Netherlands  2.38%
Belgium   2.12%
India   1.91%
Switzerland  1.59%
Australia  1.49%
Mexico   1.45%
Brazil   1.4%
Spain   1.4%
South Korea  1.35%
Venezuela  1.22%
Sweden   1.1%
165 Other Countries 26.14%

Have at it world – you spend more money – it’s about time you chipped in as much as we have anyway!

There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People’s Bank of China. Beijing’s moves this week to offer $95bn in yuan currency swaps to developing economies show how fast China aims to break dollar dependence.

China isn’t even the second largest contributer to the IMF based off of economic strength.  China is growing and will be incredibly powerful in the future, but it still has a ways to go.  I just think it wouldn’t be a bad thing to have some of these countries wake up and realize what it is that we actually do and how much we actually carry.  Put down the globe Atlas and take a breather!

Share on Facebook

If you thought the ponzi schemes with Madoff and Stanford were the latest and greatest and as bad as things could get you are dead wrong! 

It appears that the big banks on Wall Street unwittingly were also aiding in the armament of Iran and Ahmadinejad. 

Officials plan to unseal a 118-count indictment Tuesday accusing a Chinese national of setting up a handful of fake companies to hide that he was selling millions of dollars in potential nuclear materials to Tehran.

“This case will cut off a major source of supply to Iran and it shows how they are going ahead full steam to get a nuclear bomb. Long-range missiles they pretty much have already,” a law enforcement source close to the case said.

“We think it is one of the largest suppliers of weapons of mass destruction to Iran.”

Will we receive those posters now who think that Iran is the land of gumdrops and kittens?  or will liberals finally come to their senses and admit that Iran is dangerous and Ahmadinejad is not a person willing to negotiate nor will he stop his goal of building a nuclear weapon?  It’s quite obvious if you ask me!

Experts now warn that Iran is incredibly close to having enough nuclear material to create an atom bomb.  Sanctions and U.N. embargoes have typically worked in the past for Iran, but this is a case and point story that Iran will stop at nothing to amass these materials to get to its final goal of a nuclear bomb.  Ahmadinejad, if you recall, made statements that he believes he is the chosen one to bring back the next coming of the prophet or the 3rd Jihad.

58 illegal transactions were documented between 2006 and 2008.  Shipments also included various banned substances from China to Iran.

An example of some of the transactions:

    – 33,000 pounds of a specialized aluminum alloy used almost exclusively  in long-range missile production.

    – 66,000 pounds of tungsten copper plate, which is used in missile guidance systems.

    – 53,900 pounds of maraging steel rods, a super-hard metal used in uranium enrichment and to make casings for nuclear bombs.

The recipient is believed to have been a subsidiary of the Iranian Defense Ministry.
The suspect, who is not believed to be in the U.S., set up four bogus import-export companies that did business with six Iranian shell firms, one source said.

This sounds incredibly similar to the “pseudo” charities that have been set-up across the country that are backed by Islam.  The charities themselves are shells and they are ways in which they can pass money through to Iran from the United States.  Many of these organizations are also training grounds for terrorist activities.  As they always tell us – “follow the money.”  

“They took elaborate steps to conceal the identity of the shipper and the recipient,” the source said.

The deals went through “several” New York banks, which cooperated when the alleged plot was uncovered.

“The New York banks were completely unaware,” the source said.

I’m not sure I trust the above statement completely.  The jury is still out on whether or not certain employees did in fact know about the scheme…

This isn’t the first time this has happened and the main reason investigators caught on was due to another case involving a British bank, Lloyd’s.

In January, Lloyd’s paid a $350 million fine to settle accusations it “stripped” information from Iranian money transfers to New York banks, hiding where the cash came from.

Officials said they suspected that money was also used to finance Iran’s nuke program.

“The important thing is to put sunlight on these deals,” the law enforcement source said.

The important thing would be to do something about this – not sit there and give speeches about disarming ourselves and scrapping our nuclear weapons which still act as a great deterrent.

Share on Facebook

What are we all supposed to make of this?  Why is calling something socialist such a bad thing nowadays?  It’s not like Europe isn’t “out of the closet” socialist.  Stop with the denial already and let’s call a spade a spade.  I will write more on this blatant denial this week in an op-ed piece.

As many of us, who are on top of the news cycles, are aware, TARP funds from when President Bush was in office during the first bailout of late September, have been given back to the government.  At least that’s what many are attempting to do. 

The issue at play is the media is making a huge deal about all the “big guns” in the financial industry like Bank of America, Wachovia, Citibank, AIG etc. but they do not disclose that many of the smaller banks, those that are local or regional to specific states), were safe from the economic crisis because they did not get involved with hybrid securities, mortgage-backed loans or the sub-prime market. 

These small banks don’t want the TARP money, they never did want it.  The main reason they didn’t want the hand-out was knowing there would be strings attached from the government.  We have seen what taking government/taxpayer funds has done to the likes of GM, Chrysler and AIG.  I’m sure we will see more from Citibank and Bank of America in the coming months as well.  The government can control what you do and how you do it.  No need for a board of directors – the government will pressure the CEO to leave.  No need for bankruptcy court, the government will make sure you meet its plan to restructure and then produce things that it deems acceptable – like green cars. 

It’s no surprise that small banks that don’t make that much to begin with, just want to be left to their own devices and do what they do best – run their bank in their locality.  These banks are from several different states, Indiana, California, New York, Louisiana, and the list goes on.  They are trying to give back over $340 million to the government.  Any taxpayer, I don’t care which side of the aisle you are on, should want that money back if the banks don’t need it.  The government, if they were acting on the interest of the people and not themselves and their own ideology would accept that money and would give it back to us.

The prime example of all of this is Geithner who has recently stated that he wants more control and will get rid of executive management if he deems it necessary. 

“If in the future, banks need exceptional assistance in order to get through this, then we will make sure that assistance comes,” while ensuring taxpayers are protected, Geithner said yesterday in an interview on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “Where that requires a change in management and the board, then we will do that.”

This just seems like another pay-to-play scheme to get his cronies on the board of directors or in upper management.  This is going to be detrimental to the free market and the private sector. 

I recently purchased and read the Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes and it is incredibly uncanny how the REAL history of the Great Depression and FDR’s policies parallel what Barack Obama, Geithner and his cabinet are doing at this very moment – which is why the cliche “History repeats itself,” still exists.

Roosevelt didn’t do any one thing that protracted the Depression. Instead, with his bold and oft-changing ideas, he created an air of economic uncertainty that was deadly to private-sector recovery. Investors had no idea what might come next, so they were afraid to move on.

Roosevelt also scared investors by creating government bodies that competed with once-thriving private industries. FDR’s Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, forced the power industry to compete with heavily subsidized electricity – much like the government involvement in the Auto and Financial Industry, today.  (We may see this with the Health Insurance Industry soon enough – if the liberals get their way).

Here’s a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I’m an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration’s goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can’t quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive. 

I’m not sure why so many are unwilling to see what is really going on here and the true nature of this power grab?  This is all political – this is not for the betterment of the country.  I really do worry about the future of this nation as a Democratic Republic.

Share on Facebook

I wonder why nobody has reported the good news or made mention of Governor Palin/Sarc.?

Her name would surely be mentioned if this was bad news IMHO…

From Drudge:

Most major banks and credit unions in Alaska seem to be in good health, despite the worsening news about the economy and the recent bailout of troubled national banks.

One positive sign is that many of the state’s largest banks and credit unions grew in local profits, revenue, loan activity or deposits last year.

What will happen this year is a different question. Last year, many local financial institutions benefited from high oil prices and fatter-than-normal Permanent Fund dividends. This year, oil and mineral prices are down, tourism is expected to suffer and some of the state’s largest employers are laying off workers.

But because most banks in Alaska avoided risky loans, and because economists aren’t predicting severe job losses in Alaska this year, Anchorage financial executives don’t expect the sort of meltdown and loss of shareholder confidence that has pummeled their colleagues in the Lower 48.

“There’s a dislocation between what people are seeing on the national news and what’s happening here,” said Jason Roth, chief financial officer at First National Bank Alaska.

ADEQUATE BACKING?

According to regulatory filings at the end of last year, all of the state’s major banks exceeded federal regulators’ threshold for maintaining enough financial backing to cover the risk of failed loans. And that includes the three banks — Wells Fargo, Key Bank and Alaska Pacific Bancshares — that accepted money from the U.S. Treasury as part of its Troubled Asset Relief Program, otherwise known as the national bank bailout or TARP.

Credit unions also seem to be doing OK, though they say they are affected by the financial woes of their customers.

“Most credit unions in Alaska are well capitalized but these are tough times,” said James Wileman, president of the Alaska Credit Union League.

Members of his Sitka credit union, for example, are hurting due to troubles in the community’s tourism- and fishing-dependent economy, he said.

Like Alaska’s banks, the credit unions recently had to begin paying a higher premium into a national fund that protects customer deposits if financial institutions fail.

“All the credit unions (and banks) in the country had to pay in,” Wileman said, noting that because it was a one-time event, his company does not plan to pass along that cost to its customers.

Read more at the above link for the full article and story!

Share on Facebook