Full quote, "The attitude of management is that if a customer is struggling to make their payments on time, we are not going to send out the collectors, but we will call them to ask how we can pray for their situation."
Another, "We opened the doors of the mortgage division of Riverview Community Bank on March 3rd, 2003. Since that day we have had 39 salvations (7 employees and 3 of their husbands), 25 healings (2 employees), and 4 recommitments to Christ."
And as of Halloween, 2009, only one failed bank. How about those numbers? Can you argue with that?
Moreover, Uncle Sugar, via the FDIC, made sure those of the flock putting $250.000 or less individually at risk, came out of it with something to pray and bray about. If any had greater faith, more than $250,000 of faith at risk, well, they took a partial hit. No threshold deductible but a cap is how the game is played. The less faithful did better.
A government bailout. A bigtime real as you can almost touch it bailout by the US of A. That's us. Bailing out them. It makes you proud.
Exactly such a thing as many GOP - Christians rail against in St. Paul, atop the hill. That's a mood against profligate oversized government, when benefiting others.
FDIC bailing out bank depositors, must have a kind of divine dimension to it, and be okay. Even holy. Ask bank holding company president, Mary Kiffmeyer, that one. See what answer the deal lady gives. (Oops, make that dear lady, spellcheck did not catch the typo.)
Anyway, the home page of the day is here, the focal page of the day, here, per this screenshot (and what in the world is going on in Elk River, Minnesota, what's the story, this link, that might be contagious and spread by word of mouth - click the image to enlarge and read):
There are two testimonials of the day, here and here. These banks, they do get robbed.
There's more - it reaches to the Bay Area, this link:
http://www.harvestevan.org/chuck-ripka-gods-banker.html
linking over to this YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa4SwkCMpf0
It makes life worthwhile having new things to learn every day.
For instance, I am waiting to learn if there is going to be any post-hoc government inquiry into why that "attitude of management" reported at the outset was allowed to stay in the saddle as long as it did, with it looking as if regulators were willing to simply stand by and watch. Like circus spectators. Did they hold popcorn and a soft drink as local history unfolded?
_________UPDATE_________
I have reread the FDIC's Cease and Desist order of April, 2009, issued to Riverview Community Bank management and directors; this link; see also, FDIC late May 2009 press release; this link; and I am totally astounded that at page 2 of the item it stated:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Bank, its institution-affiliated parties, as that term is defined in section 3(u) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1813(u), and its successors and assigns, cease and desist from the following unsafe or unsound banking practices and violations of law and regulation:
A. Operating with a board of directors that has failed to provide adequate supervision over and direction to the management of the Bank.
B. Operating with an inadequate level of capital protection for the kind and quality of assets held and/or appropriate to the risk inherent in the activities engaged in by the Bank.
C. Operating with an inadequate allowance for loans and lease losses for the volume, kind, and quality of loans and leases held, and/or failing to make provision for an adequate allowance for possible loan and lease losses.
I believe there is additional order boilerplate that can be used before the recitation of the board supervision and capital levels, to the effect:
Operating with management whose policies and practices are detrimental to the Bank and jeopardize the safety of its deposits.
Given the headline quote excerpt and the full quote given at the start of the post, either the FDIC was misled about management practices, or there was clear regulatory dereliction of duty in not including that factor within the Cease and Desist Order.
How can anyone claim that kind of bring-them-in-to-pray-together mischief is "sound" banking practice? It is antithetical to prudence and sound handling of other peoples' money. It is a breach of trust. There is no other way to see things.
So, was the FDIC at that time being misled, or was Chuck Ripka blowing smoke to the other audience he addressed, those within harvest evangelical ranks? It had to be one or the other unless FDIC staff persons were asleep at the switch and worse in a way than the now-grounded Northwest flight pilots who failed to expediently find the Twin Cities airport as their landing destination. The pilots on their own corrected their error, and it did not last as inadequate or incomplete for months.