Talk:List of bank failures in the United States (2008–present)

Wachovia

Where is Wachovia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.24.104.150 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Technically Wachovia didn't fail, they were acquired by Wells Fargo through a deal brokered by the Federal Reserve without being placed under the auspice of a FDIC trusteeship. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Blanking and Redirect vs. keeping as separate article

This article should be kept as is. For one thing, it is an article and not a list. The article is about the banks that have been seized by the FDIC in 2008. That is far different from banks that have been merged, acquired, or filed for bankruptcy protection. It is a very specific class of banks. Read up on the subject please!

Further, there would need to be sources showing that each of these banks were seized as part of the subprime mortgage crises in order to be merged into the article about the subprime crisis. Some of these banks quite possibly failed because of bad management, separate from the subprime crisis.

Finally, merging is not the same as blanking and redirecting. If consensus, after discussion, is to merge this article into List of bankrupt or acquired banks during the subprime mortgage crisis, then the referenced content in this article needs to be moved there, along with a separate table of the FDIC seized banks, since they are an entirely different class of animal than banks merged, acquired, and filed for bankruptcy. Thanks for discussing this here. ~ priyanath ^talk 03:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there a page for 2009 when we've have 14 failures already? --Selfish Gene 2009 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dups on Sept 4th

1. 87 and #93 are duplicate (Vantus Bank, Sioux City, IA)
2. 91 and #86 are duplicate (InBank Oak Forest, IL)
3. 90 and #85 are duplicate (First Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, MO)
4. 92 and #88 are duplicate (Platinum Community Bank, Rolling Meadows, IL)

Pls fix ( as I do not know the exact procdedure ) Cosmicray (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A "recount" is requested

I just posted the failure of San Joaquin Bank (based in Bakersfield, California) which was taken over on Friday, October 16, 2009--yet my Associated Press sourced article stated that this was "the 99th failure this year of a federally insured bank (in the U.S.)." [1] By Wikipedia's count, it is the 103rd U.S. bank failure this year; do we need a recount? Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Recount fixed! I double-checked the duplicates (see discussion above) and removed them; now Wikipedia's count matches the Associated Press count. As of October 16, 2009, there have been 99 U.S. bank failures. Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Who just cleared the 2009 list? It's not "vandalism" if it's verified one bank at a time. Chadlupkes (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Table

I have to strongly disagree with the table format here it doesn't look good. User:Little Professor needs to discuss major changes before making them. However, I do agree with assets column. South Bay (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More columns would help

A list of Bank failures should have a few more columns, Assets is good, but adding a Liabilities column would be better. It would be good to add a third column of reasons for the failure.

Causes for the failure could be things like (Bank run or Credit downgrade or Fraud.rhyre (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The cause issue is just beyond the evidence we have or will ever likely have. I don't think we could ever really state the cause for a bank's failure, so it is probably not even worth trying. Likewise, I wouldn't know where to start in finding out how much the banks had in liabilities. The FDIC specifically states how much the bank had in assets because those assets are sold at the time the FDIC steps in. As such, it is easy to add that information at the time we add each bank. -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding Acquiring Institution to the list

If it's OK I'd like to add at the end of each listing the name of the acquiring institution, if applicable. I know this involves a lot of work and I'm willing to do it as long as it doesn't end up getting deleted after all the hard work. Adding the successor bank to the list IMHO is important to indicate that this particular bank has been acquired by and is now part of another bank and in the case of a bank that simply shuttered I'll put N/A or No Acquiring Institution. What does everyone think? TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My one suggestion would be to add it before the asset amount instead of at the end of the table. -Rrius (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How about this

Failure #	Bank	City	State	Date		Acquiring Institution	Failed Bank's Assets   ($mil.)

Please let me know what you think. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How about...

Failure #	Bank	City	State	Date	Acquired by	Assets   ($mil.)

...to keep the headings short and straightforward? -Rrius (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll take care of it as soon as I have a chance. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I finished 2008 through 2010 and will do 2011 later today. Let me know what you think. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything is now done. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)