Frank A. Pinto
President and chief executive,
Pennsylvania Association of Community, Bankers
I don't know; I really don't know. You see six or seven scenarios being proposed, and one of the potential solutions is the BIF and SAIF merger. Is that the best for the industry? I don't know.
The industry has the responsibility to be responsive to this crisis and not allow Congress to dictate a solution that might even be more detrimental than some of the scenarios.
I don't know if you can do a merger in a vacuum until all the potential scenarios and compromises are addressed. Half of my members are BIF members and half are in SAIF. What we've tried to do as a trade association is consider all the options and be reasonable about it.
H. Lee Swanson
President and chief executive,
State Bank of Cross Plains, Wis.
I don't think its a good idea, but it may be the reality. It's a question now of what we can get for a trade-off. But you know, we operated for a long time with a one-quarter differential, and we survived that, so this is not the end of the world for them.
I'm not sure why the credit unions fund is not looked at. If we have to pay [for the thrifts.). then I'm not sure why they shouldn't. Why can't we lean on that industry to share some of the expenses? Maybe the best deal is to get the credit unions under the tent and get Congress to correct some of these inequities.
But my sense of Congress is that this [BIF and SAIF merger] will happen, and we'll just have to get the best deal out of it we can.
Michael R. McGuire
President and chief executive,
La Cumbre Savings Bank,
Santa Barbara, Calif.
You and I know that they [banks] are not bailing us out. The remainder of the thrift industry is paying a huge portion of its burden on the FICO [Financing Corp.] bonds. As the industry continues to shrink, who will pay for those bonds? It's the healthy survivors of the thrift industry who are left to pay them.
Nobody's bailing us out; we got stuck paying for the FICO debt.
Ultimately, merging the two funds makes the most sense. If there's going to be parity, and if the funds are going to be operated in the same manner with the same premiums, then why not merge them to get rid of the administrative overlap?
John Toolan
President,
Enfield Savings and Loan Association, Enfield, Conn.
In the long run there should be one fund. I understand that our brothers in the banks are against using their money for the FICO bonds, but I think we have to 19ok at the overall picture of the public confidence factor. I don't think that the public will stand for another go-around with tax money being used, so banks should consider that.
We can't allow for a disparity in the premiums, because thrifts will then just lower the amount they have to pay by lowering the deposit base. It's a catch-22. By trying to increase the fund level, it will actually decrease.
As for the disadvantages that banks have suffered in the past, that was then and this is now.
