Another late filing notice filed August 14, 2012

Following is the meat of the filing from Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.: (I added the highlights to make it easier to read)
State below in reasonable detail why Forms 10-K, 20-F, 11-K, 10-Q, 10-D, N-SAR, N-CSR, or the transition report or portion thereof, could not be filed within the prescribed time period.
The 10Q filing will be delayed to allow for the time necessary to complete a comprehensive review of the Company’s bank subsidiary financial statements in light of the results of a regulatory examination being completed today.  The timing of the examination prevents a timely review without unreasonable effort and expense.

You can see the entire filing here

34 comments on “Another late filing notice filed August 14, 2012

  1. The August 20 revised call report is on the FDIC website:

    It is a revision to the 2nd quarter call report. Supposedly, a revised call report is required to be submitted with revisions to the original report shown in red – but I don’t see any red entries. (Yes, I have a color monitor!) So, it seems that to discern the differences, I would have to compare the revised report to the intitial report, line by line?

    Does it seem likely that the revised 2nd quarter call report resulted from last week’s regulatory examination? I wonder if the bank will issue a news release that explains all this, at least from their vantage point?

  2. First thing you notice when reviewing is an increase in the provision for loan losses for the second quarter. My guess would be the regulators made them take more than the original estimate. Which pretty much happens every quarter! Bottom line is being below 2 percent means the clock is ticking for sure now.

    • I don’t know how these things work. But if the feds thought the bank was about to turn the corner, and pull in additional capital as they have been required to do, would the feds quibble over the second-quarter’s loan-loss provisions? Or would they even have descended on the bank here in August to perform an examination?

      I think the feds have lost confidence that the bank will pull the fat out of the fire.

      • It would be unfortunate, but it would also be helpful if someone here had some experience with this situation. With no information or experience, it turns to best guess and speculation. If anyone reading this could illuminate us a little, maybe the worry would ease. Maybe not.

        • Why not the bank itself? Why don’t they illuminate us? OK, they always say they are prevented from releasing info that doesn’t go to the public at large. So, then release it to to public at large!

          • I don’t know if anyone in the bank has any experience with a bank that seems to be moving towards closure. It may be as confusing for them as it is for us. Some of what they have told us, like they would update us on the results of the capital drive in 30 days from the annual meeting, has turned out to be unreliable at best, anyway.

            • I believe that the bank hired one or more consulting firms to guide it in evaluating possiblilities for increasing capital.

                • I believe it was stated in the Bureau County Republican, in one of their articles that interviewed Tom Ogaard. But to reasearch that, I would need to sign up for a “3-pack” access to the BCR’s archives for $6.95 – well more than the value 10 shares of PNBC! Or, could it have been said at the annual meeting?

                  Or, maybe I’m suffering from dementia at my advanced age? (I had to look up the spelling of dementia. Well, I at least can still look up things alphabetically.)

Comments are closed.