Receivership: It is what it is.

There has been a lot of talk and confusion regarding the bank and receivership and conservatorship, etc.

Apparently some people think all that means is that the regulators would have another bank step in to replace Citizens to manage the bank, and it would be business as usual. That may be true in some instances, but there appear to be some other outcomes that could occur, depending on the circumstances. All of the possible scenarios do protect the insured accounts of the customers. The OCC policy and procedures manual, referenced below, lays it out pretty well, though there is a lot of room for interpretation. Read it for yourself and decide. Any banking experience here would be helpful.

Some of the contributors to this site have narrowed the scope on the concept under other posts. Click here for a fairly involved explanation from the PPM (policy and procedures manual) of the OCC. Towards the bottom of page 9 hits on the topic. This document also explains some of the enforcement actions to which Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. has subjected of late.

Read Section 38 h of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act . It is just over halfway down in section ” h 3″      “Conservatorship, receivership, or other actions required.”

Deficiency in Leadership?

Two theories emerge as to the precipitous financial and ethical decline of Citizens First National Bank, and they are as follows:

1. The former CEO Tony Sorcic, led this board by the nose, into this steep decline.

2. The board, through policy and oversight, or lack thereof, directed the bank towards the brink of financial and ethical ruin.

Your thoughts?