Quantcast
JAN 24, 2011 4:15pm ET

Related Links

OTS' Press Release on Receivership of Federal Savings Bank (PDF)
Press Release on Seizure of United Western

Web Seminars

Deposit Automation: Enhance Your Customer’s Experience at the ATM with Fast, Reliable and Accurate Transactions
Available On Demand
Supply Chain Finance: 7 Actions to Gain a Competitive Advantage
Available On Demand
Web Seminar: Loan Officer Compensation New Rules
Available On Demand

Did United Western Failure Say as Much About OTS as the Thrift?

Print
Reprints
Email

With regulators catching flak for taking too long to close "zombie" institutions, the failure of United Western Bank seemed atypically quick.

The $2 billion-asset thrift had become undercapitalized only at the end of the third quarter. And by late last week it had lined up $149 million of the $200 million it needed. Regulators seized United on Friday anyway, surprising observers who have watched undercapitalized banks limp along for much longer than three months.

"If you have your ear to the ground, you get a sense of who is trouble and who is likely to close," said Thomas Beiging, a lawyer at Beiging, Shapiro & Burrus in Denver. "Somehow United Western went to the front of the line very quickly. With the capital raise going on, for United Western to go down suggests that something else occurred beyond a further deterioration in asset quality."

No one seemed more shocked than Guy A. Gibson, the chairman of United Western Bancorp Inc., the thrift's holding company. In a rare step for an executive of a just-failed institution, he issued a press release calling the regulators' actions "precipitious" given the company's capital commitments.

The Office of Thrift Supervision has said it believed United Western had a liquidity crisis. Sources close to the thrift disputed this claim, and said its capital restoration plans hinged on conditions the agency would not approve.

These sources interpreted the failure as a bit of housecleaning by the OTS, as it prepares to merge this summer into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Other sources agreed that the failure shows the OTS is getting tough in its final hours.

"It is a myth that the OTS is the softest regulator," said Kip Weissman, a lawyer at Luse Gorman Pomerenk & Schick who has worked with United Western but would not discuss its case specifically. "In its waning days, the OTS is taking no prisoners when it comes to safety and soundness and regulatory compliance."

United Western found itself capital-strapped largely due to a particularly troublesome book of private-label mortgage-backed securities. An $80 million capital raise in late 2009 was insufficient to plug the hole.

Most recently the company delayed its third-quarter results as the thrift and the OTS negotiated valuations. In December United Western disclosed another $16.3 million of other-than-temporary impairment charges, which dropped the thrift's total risk-based capital ratio to 7.8%, or 20 basis points below the level regulators deem adequately capitalized.

While the asset treatment negotiations were disclosed in regulatory filings, the regulators and the thrift were also sparring over liabilities, sources said. The thrift funded itself largely with deposits from retirement funds such as 401(k)s and other trust services, though it had started to operate more like a community bank in recent years.

A source close to the dealings said regulators began to view those deposits as brokered funds, especially after the shift of United Western's examination to the OTS' western division from the Midwest one. As the FDIC got more involved, deposits that were once treated as millions of accounts began to be classified as a concentration from four depositors.

"The regulators have a profoundly different perspective of United Western's deposit structure than what they did before," said Wesley Brown, a managing partner at St. Charles Capital in Denver who was not involved with United Western but followed the situation closely. "The OTS had for years accepted the large trust accounts as legitimate core depositors, but once the FDIC starts calling the shots, they became no longer acceptable."


Email Newsletters

Get the Daily Briefing and the Morning Update when you sign up for a free trial.

Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.