FDIC GOVERNORS SAY LARGE LOAN COMMITMENTS OWNED BY BANKS ARE IMPROVING

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail sent out by the FDIC: Joint Release Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of the Comptroller of the Currency August 25, 2011 Credit Quality of Large Loan Commitments Improves for Second Consecutive Year The credit quality of large loan commitments owned by U.S. banking organizations, foreign banking organizations (FBOs), and nonbanks improved in 2011 for the second consecutive year, according to the Shared National Credits (SNC) Review for 2011. A loan commitment is the obligation of a lender to make loans or issue letters of credit pursuant to a formal loan agreement. Total criticized loans declined more than 28 percent to $321 billion in 2011, although the percentage of criticized assets remained high compared to pre-financial crisis levels. A criticized loan is rated special mention, substandard, doubtful, or loss. Loans rated as doubtful or loss—the two weakest categories—fell 50 percent to $24 billion in 2011. Reasons for improvement in credit quality included better operating performance among borrowers, debt restructurings, bankruptcy resolutions, and ongoing access to bond and equity markets. Industries that led the improvement in credit quality were real estate and construction, media and telecommunications, and finance and insurance. Despite this progress, poorly underwritten loans originated in 2006 and 2007 continued to adversely affect the SNC portfolio. Approximately 60 percent of criticized assets were originated in these years. Refinancing risk remained elevated as nearly $2 trillion, or 78 percent of the SNC portfolio, matures by the end of 2014. Of this maturing amount, $204 billion was criticized. Although nonbank entities, such as securitization pools, hedge funds, insurance companies, and pension funds, owned the smallest share of loan commitments, they owned the largest share (58 percent) of classified credits (rated substandard, doubtful, or loss). In other highlights of the review: Total SNC commitments increased less than 1 percent from the 2010 review. Total SNC loans outstanding fell $93 billion to $1.1 trillion, a decline of 8 percent. Criticized assets represented 13 percent of the SNC portfolio, compared with 18 percent in 2010. Classified assets declined 30 percent to $215 billion in 2011 and represented 9 percent of the portfolio, compared with 12 percent in 2010. Credits rated special mention, which exhibited potential weakness and could result in further deterioration if uncorrected, declined 25 percent to $106 billion in 2011 and represented 4 percent of the portfolio, compared with 6 percent in 2010. Nonaccruals declined to $101 billion from $151 billion. Adjusted for losses, nonaccrual loans declined to $92 billion from $137 billion, a 33 percent reduction. The distribution of credits across entities—U.S. banking organizations, FBOs, and nonbanks—remained relatively unchanged. U.S. banking organizations owned 42 percent of total SNC loan commitments, FBOs owned 38 percent, and nonbanks owned 20 percent. The share owned by nonbanks declined for the first time since 2001. Nonbanks continued to own a larger share of classified (58 percent) and nonaccrual (60 percent) assets compared with their total share of the SNC portfolio. Institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation owned only 17 percent of classified assets and 15 percent of nonaccrual loans. The media and telecommunications industry group led other industry groups in criticized volume with $70 billion. Finance and insurance followed with $37 billion, then real estate and construction with $35 billion. Although these groups had the largest dollar volume of criticized loans, the three groups with the highest percentage of criticized loans were entertainment and recreation, media and telecommunications, and commercial services. The 2011 review indicated that the number of credits originated in 2010 rose dramatically compared to 2009 and 2008. Although the overall quality of underwriting in 2010 was significantly better than in 2007, some easing of standards was noted compared to the relatively tighter standards in 2009 and the latter half of 2008. Federal banking agencies expect banks and thrifts to underwrite syndicated loans using prudential underwriting standards, regardless of the intent to hold or sell the loans. Poorly underwritten syndicated loan transactions are subject to regulatory criticism. The SNC program was established in 1977 to provide an efficient and consistent review and analysis of SNCs. A SNC is any loan or formal loan commitment, and any asset such as real estate, stocks, notes, bonds, and debentures taken as debts previously contracted, extended to borrowers by a federally supervised institution, its subsidiaries, and affiliates that aggregates to $20 million or more and is shared by three or more unaffiliated supervised institutions. Many of these loan commitments are also shared with FBOs and nonbanks, including securitization pools, hedge funds, insurance companies, and pension funds. In conducting the 2011 SNC Review, agencies reviewed $910 billion of the $2.5 trillion credit commitments in the portfolio. The sample was weighted toward non-investment grade and criticized credits. The results of the review are based on analyses prepared in the second quarter of 2011 using credit-related data provided by federally supervised institutions as of December 31, 2010, and March 31, 2011." # # #

ALLEGED INSIDER TRADER GETS FINAL JUDGMENT

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: "The SEC announced that the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered a Final Judgment as to Daniel L. DeVore on July 12, 2011, in the SEC’s insider trading case, SEC v. Mark Anthony Longoria, et al., 11-CV-0753 (SDNY) (JSR). The SEC filed its Complaint on February 3, 2011, charging two expert network employees and four consultants with insider trading for illegally tipping hedge funds and other investors. On February 8, 2011, the SEC filed an Amended Complaint, charging a New York-based hedge fund and four hedge fund portfolio managers and analysts who illegally traded on confidential information obtained from technology company employees moonlighting as expert network consultants. The scheme netted more than $30 million from trades based on material, nonpublic information about such companies as AMD, Seagate Technology, Western Digital, Fairchild Semiconductor, and Marvell. The charges were the first against traders in the SEC's ongoing investigation of insider trading involving expert networks.
The SEC alleged that DeVore, a Global Supply Manager at Dell, was privy to confidential information about Dell’s internal sales forecasts as well as information about the pricing and volume of Dell’s purchases from its suppliers. DeVore regularly provided Primary Global Research LLC (“PGR”) and PGR clients with this inside information so it could be used to trade securities. From 2008 to 2010, DeVore received approximately $145,000 for talking to PGR and its clients.
The Final Judgment entered against DeVore: (1) permanently enjoins him from violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; (2) orders him liable for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains of $145,750, together with prejudgment interest of $6,098.50, for a total of $151,848.50; and (3) permanently bars him from acting as an officer or director of a public company. Based on DeVore’s agreement to cooperate with the SEC, the Court is not ordering Defendant to pay a civil penalty.”

IS THE SEC STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONS FOR MUNI BOND PURCHASERS?:

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: "What is the SEC doing to strengthen protections for municipal bond investors? Public companies that issue stocks are required to provide ongoing disclosure to the SEC and to investors. In contrast, most offerings by municipal issuers are exempt from the provisions of federal law requiring filings with the SEC. However, for most municipal securities issued after July 3, 1995, annual financial information and operating data, as well as notice of certain events, is required by SEC dealer regulations to be filed with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and is available at no charge to investors at www.emma.msrb.org. Improved disclosure is underway: the SEC approved changes to its rules in May 2010 designed to increase the quality and timeliness of disclosure about municipal bonds, including newly issued variable rate demand obligations. Those changes are slated to take effect on the compliance date of December 1, 2010. Beginning in September, the SEC staff will hold field hearings to gather input from municipal market participants. Some of the topics to be considered include: disclosures in official statements when municipal bonds are first issued; the availability of continuing information on municipal bonds; accounting practices, including whether the bond issuer prepares its financial statements in accordance with the standards set by the Government Accounting Standards Board, or GASB; and sales practices and potential conflicts of interest. The hearings will help inform a planned SEC staff report that will recommend ways to better protect municipal bond invesTORS."

MIAMI BANK TO PAY $10.9 MILLION FOR ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS

The following excerpt is from the FDIC website: August 22, 2011 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation Assess Civil Money Penalties Against Ocean Bank WASHINGTON, DC - The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) today announced the assessment of concurrent civil money penalties of $10.9 million against Ocean Bank, Miami, Florida, for violations of federal and state Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money (AML) laundering laws and regulations. Ocean Bank, without admitting or denying the allegations, consented to payment of the civil money penalties, which was satisfied by a single payment to the U.S. Government. In taking these actions, the FDIC, FinCEN, and OFR determined that the bank failed to implement an effective BSA/AML Compliance Program with internal controls reasonably designed to detect and report money laundering and other suspicious activity in a timely manner. The bank failed to conduct adequate independent testing, particularly with respect to suspicious activity reporting requirements. In addition, the bank failed to sufficiently staff the BSA compliance function with appropriately trained staff to ensure compliance with BSA requirements. "Effective Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering programs commensurate with the risk profile of the institution is paramount in protecting our financial system and individual banks from harm," said Sandra L. Thompson, Director, Division of Risk Management Supervision. "This penalty underscores the significance for banks to have strong internal systems and controls to detect and report suspicious activity and ensure compliance with Bank Secrecy Act requirements." "The Bank failed to recognize and mitigate risks and report transaction activity often associated with money laundering involving direct foreign account relationships in high-risk jurisdictions, particularly Venezuela," noted FinCEN Director James H. Freis, Jr. "The Bank's failure to respond to such risk with commensurate systems and controls was both systemic and longstanding. The civil money penalties and forfeiture concludes joint investigations by FinCEN, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, and parallel examinations conducted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation." "The OFR will continue to monitor Ocean Bank's efforts to enhance its BSA/AML program," said Tom Cardwell, Commissioner of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. "We are confident the bank is committed to be in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the Consent Order and Agreement."

FIRST SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK, GEORGIA, WAS CLOSED BY THE FEDS

The following excerpt is from the FDIC website: First Southern National Bank, Statesboro, Georgia, was closed today by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. To protect the depositors, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Heritage Bank of the South, Albany, Georgia, to assume all of the deposits of First Southern National Bank. The sole branch of First Southern National Bank will reopen on Saturday as a branch of Heritage Bank of the South. Depositors of First Southern National Bank will automatically become depositors of Heritage Bank of the South. Deposits will continue to be insured by the FDIC, so there is no need for customers to change their banking relationship in order to retain their deposit insurance coverage up to applicable limits. Customers of First Southern National Bank should continue to use their existing branch until they receive notice from Heritage Bank of the South that it has completed systems changes to allow other Heritage Bank of the South branches to process their accounts as well. This evening and over the weekend, depositors of First Southern National Bank can access their money by writing checks or using ATM or debit cards. Checks drawn on the bank will continue to be processed. Loan customers should continue to make their payments as usual. As of June 30, 2011, First Southern National Bank had approximately $164.6 million in total assets and $159.7 million in total deposits. Heritage Bank of the South will pay the FDIC a premium of 1.0 percent to assume all of the deposits of First Southern National Bank. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, Heritage Bank of the South agreed to purchase essentially all of the assets. The FDIC and Heritage Bank of the South entered into a loss-share transaction on $115.7 million of First Southern National Bank's assets. Heritage Bank of the South will share in the losses on the asset pools covered under the loss-share agreement. The loss-share transaction is projected to maximize returns on the assets covered by keeping them in the private sector. The transaction also is expected to minimize disruptions for loan customers. . The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $39.6 million. Compared to other alternatives, Heritage Bank of the South's acquisition was the least costly resolution for the FDIC's DIF. First Southern National Bank is the 67th FDIC-insured institution to fail in the nation this year, and the seventeenth in Georgia. The last FDIC-insured institution closed in the state was High Trust Bank, Stockbridge, on July 15, 2011."

A PAY- TO- PLAY MUNI MARKET IS A NO, NO SAYS THE SEC

The following is an SEC website excerpt from 2010. With the worsening economic problems which municipalities are having and the current election hysteria heating up, it might be good to review the rules regarding the bribing of government officials involved with the marketing of municipal bonds. Washington, D.C., March 18, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued a report warning firms that municipal securities rules prohibiting pay-to-play apply to affiliated financial professionals, not just a firm's employees. The pay-to-play rule, MSRB Rule G-37, generally prohibits firms from underwriting municipal bonds for an issuer for two years after a municipal finance professional (MFP) involved with that firm makes a campaign contribution to an elected official of that municipality. In the Report of Investigation, the Commission makes clear that an executive who supervises the activities of a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer is not exempt from the MSRB's pay-to-play rule just because he or she may be outside the firm's corporate governance structure. As such, an executive may be deemed an MFP if he or she is not part of a broker-dealer, but oversees the broker-dealer from the vantage of the holding company. “Firms and associated persons must adhere strictly to municipal securities pay-to-play rules,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Firms cannot rely solely upon titles or organizational charts in determining whether a person is subject to those rules.” When the Commission approved the rule in 1994, it indicated that banks and bank holding companies affiliated with brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers were excluded from the rule. Since then, the Commission has not directly addressed whether directors, officers or employees of such banks and bank holding companies are MFPs if they supervise the public finance activities of brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers or serve on executive committees that engage in such supervision. The Commission's Report of Investigation stems from an Enforcement Division inquiry into whether JP Morgan Securities Inc. (JPMSI) violated the MSRB Rule. According to the Report, JPMSI underwrote municipal bonds issued by the state of California within two years after a then-Vice Chairman of JPMSI's parent bank holding company (JP Morgan Chase) gave a $1,000 contribution to a California elected official. Under Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, the Commission may investigate violations of the federal securities laws and at its discretion "publish information concerning any such violations." JPMSI consented to the issuance of the Report without admitting or denying any of the statements or conclusions."