The Collapse of Continental Illinois National Bank: Implications for Risk Management and Regulation
The Collapse of Continental Illinois National Bank:
The Implications for Risk Management and Regulation
FAIZA ASLAM
0710422
1. Why did Continental experience a run in 1982? How did it manage to survive without recourse to official assistance?
Ans. Continental was an established organization before 1982. However it was involved in a practice where it was taking up heavy duty loans from the market. It had raised loans worth $600 million from Penn Square, an institution involved in lending practices and after meeting its lending limit, it started originating loans and then sells them in the market to other banks. Continental had bought vast sums of loans from Penn Square and in turn it had a big stake in the oil and gas industry. By 1982 Penn Square’s loan represented a total of 3% of the total loan structure of Continental.
Penn Square was aggressively involved in lending out loan and lessees to the oil and gas sector especially the drilling division. The bank made its name in high-risk energy loans during the late 1970s and early 1980s Oklahoma and Texas oil boom. Between 1974 and 1982, the bank's assets increased more than 15 times to $525 million and its deposits swelled from $29 million to more than $450 million.
The risky loans involving Continental and Penn Square went bad after oil and gas drilling went down significantly after 1982. Therefore the bought loans from Penn Square turned out to be faulty. This sector decline of the drilling section sent Penn Square crashing down and along with this it took down institutions involved with it. Continental was one of the bank that faced problems. These loans afterwards converted into profit cuts thus becoming a burden on the organization. The major reasons is poor risk management policies and lack of regulations surrounding the lending division.
2. After the run in 1982, what did Continental do to reduce its vulnerability to a funding shock? What else could it have done?
Ans. After the
The Implications for Risk Management and Regulation
FAIZA ASLAM
0710422
1. Why did Continental experience a run in 1982? How did it manage to survive without recourse to official assistance?
Ans. Continental was an established organization before 1982. However it was involved in a practice where it was taking up heavy duty loans from the market. It had raised loans worth $600 million from Penn Square, an institution involved in lending practices and after meeting its lending limit, it started originating loans and then sells them in the market to other banks. Continental had bought vast sums of loans from Penn Square and in turn it had a big stake in the oil and gas industry. By 1982 Penn Square’s loan represented a total of 3% of the total loan structure of Continental.
Penn Square was aggressively involved in lending out loan and lessees to the oil and gas sector especially the drilling division. The bank made its name in high-risk energy loans during the late 1970s and early 1980s Oklahoma and Texas oil boom. Between 1974 and 1982, the bank's assets increased more than 15 times to $525 million and its deposits swelled from $29 million to more than $450 million.
The risky loans involving Continental and Penn Square went bad after oil and gas drilling went down significantly after 1982. Therefore the bought loans from Penn Square turned out to be faulty. This sector decline of the drilling section sent Penn Square crashing down and along with this it took down institutions involved with it. Continental was one of the bank that faced problems. These loans afterwards converted into profit cuts thus becoming a burden on the organization. The major reasons is poor risk management policies and lack of regulations surrounding the lending division.
2. After the run in 1982, what did Continental do to reduce its vulnerability to a funding shock? What else could it have done?
Ans. After the