Miami bank shut down - Y2K concerns sited

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I don't see that this has been posted. Saw it on GN's site:

Published Saturday, July 10, 1999, in the Miami Herald

Savings bank is seized

Federal regulators placed Oceanmark Bank, a troubled North Miami Beach savings institution, in receivership late Friday, and chartered a new bank to take its place.

The seizure was the nation's first failure of a savings institution since 1996....

...In April, the OTS issued two enforcement actions because of Oceanmark's insufficient capital, which did not meet regulatory requirements. In June, the OTS issued another enforcement action, related to the bank's lack of Y2K preparedness.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), July 15, 1999

Answers

And now it begins... I but wonder which polly will put a positive spin on the one. I thin I have the answear to the polly question of what is a polly! He/she is a liberal.There can be no other explanation after all..."He didn't inhale" or"what is your deffination of fornification" can only come from a polly liberal. LOL...Well we alll gotta be some where ( I guess).

But it does seem to have started...

Shakey has the hole a little deeper now,looking over the rim at all the crazy grass hoppes out there

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), July 15, 1999.


In all seriousness, could this have been some sort of money- laundering bank (owing to it's location) which would have otherwise been shutdown anyway?

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), July 15, 1999.

Interesting editting..

The seizure was the nation's first failure of a savings institution since 1996.

Then Linda conveniently leaves out the next two paragraphs:

Regulators said Oceanmark had been operating in an unsafe and unsound condition, had depleted its capital, and had no prospect of new funding without federal assistance.

The savings bank lacked a core source of profits, had a critically high level of bad loans, and was insolvent, with negative capital of $1.8 million, the Office of Thrift Supervision said.

Then, On Shakey Ground wonders what the polly spin will be. There is no polly spin necessary. Linda already took a meaningless bank failure and put the doomer spin on it to try and turn it into a Y2K issue.

Also note the paragraphs just prior to the one regarding the enforcement actions:

Oceanmark, with $61.9 million in assets, had been under heightened regulatory scrutiny for about two years, OTS spokesman Paul Lockwood said.

The savings bank lost $55,000 in 1998, despite securities gains of $733,000. It lost another $147,000 in the first quarter of 1999.

Now, here is a test.

Q: Why was this bank seized?

(a) Because it was unsafe, unsound, had no source of profits, had a high level of bad loans, was insolvent, had negative capital, had no prospect of new funding, and was losing money inspite of itself

OR

(b) It's lack of Y2K preparedness

If you pick (b), go to the head of the Doomer Class!

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), July 15, 1999.


Doyousee,

(b)can cause(a)...

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), July 15, 1999.


No secret that I did not post the whole article.. just the part that related to Y2K (duh.. that's what this forum is about). I only said that Y2K concerns were sited. No conspiracy here. Didn't claim that Y2K was the sole reason.. only that it was part of the reason.

I note that lack of capital was another major reason... we might be seeing more of this coming soon, dontcha think?

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), July 15, 1999.



(b)can cause(a)...

You want to expand on that a bit, Cygnus? Are you saying that you believe that is what happened in this case? How exactly could lack of Y2K preparations cause them to lose money in 1998 and 1999 and become insolvent?

Linda,

Lack of Y2K preparations was not a reason for the failure but simply one symptom of an obviously poorly run business.

-- Do You See (howstupid@youlook.com), July 15, 1999.


Do you see,

No, I don't mean b DID cause a, I said, b CAN cause a. I guess I should have said: b MAY cause a, as in, in the near future. Don't you think that after the rollover, banks that aren't ready could suffer the consequenses outlined in (a), because of y2k?

-- Cyg- (noburnt@toast.net), July 15, 1999.


Do you see,

How much flight to quality can the current system undergo and remain solvent? How many institutions will be shut down because of their lack of preparedness? The Fed will come down on the financial instituations that aren't prepared.

How will that action effect the other institutions? Consumer confidence, etc.?

I noticed the editing too but the link was there and I read the entire article.

In the end what will happen is still an unknown and it's a personal choice as to which side of the line you think the evidence supports.

Mike ==============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), July 15, 1999.


Linda,

It's not worth the time to argue with the pollys. Why are they here? It's a real curious phenomenon. Thanks for the information. I'm a Miami Beach girl (originally).

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), July 15, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ