Thank you Bidenomics:
Interesting that the article didn’t specifically mention why Republic First failed. There are articles out there that outline why it failed, and it mostly falls on terrible management by the BOD. Had nothing to do with “Bidenomics”…
The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities seized Republic First on Friday, following speculation the bank would be seized by regulators as it looked for a potential buyer. Fulton Bank reached an agreement to take over Republic First’s 32 branches across Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, which will reopen under the Fulton Bank name. Before the seizure, Republic First was delisted by Nasdaq in August, after the bank failed to file its fiscal year 2022 report with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Republic First claimed the report was not filed because of its “former executive team’s failure to maintain adequate internal controls.”
1 Like
But. .
So you don’t know that, do you? Just another Biden apologist. Have to spend the next 4 years cleaning up his mess.
3 Likes
Not a “Biden apologist”. Worst two candidates in 2024 to choose from since…well 2016. You didn’t read the article, but jumped to conclusions in your OP. “Bank Fails…it’s the President’s fault…” Whether it be Trump, Biden or whoever is in office, has no bearing on why this particular banked failed. Just your spin on the story. Read the article…
1 Like
You don’t know what I read. In a good economy bank failures aren’t the norm.
Uncle Joe has been very vocal about his claims of “Bidenomics.” Boastful even.
You don’t know that. Just your spin on the story.
Read the article Bob. It explains why the bank failed. Ignored it, and keep up with your agenda… 
1 Like
And just a Fyi…
Little more between 2016-2020 as opposed to 2021- 2024* (*4 months) 
Bank failures since 2009
| Year | Total number of bank failures |
|---|---|
| Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. | |
| 2023 | 5 |
| 2022 | 0 |
| 2021 | 0 |
| 2020 | 4 |
| 2019 | 4 |
| 2018 | 0 |
| 2017 | 8 |
| 2016 | 5 |
| 2015 | 8 |
| 2014 | 18 |
| 2013 | 24 |
| 2012 | 51 |
| 2011 | 92 |
| 2010 | 157 |
| 2009 | 140 |
1 Like
There you go with the charts! Many here do not believe in charts and numbers and things like that.
2 Likes
Nope, just what the “main stream media” tells them… 
1 Like
Your naive
You know, and I know that it depends on the source and the motivation/bias. Stats are a politician’s best friend.
I think asset loss is the most significant indicator. Wow! Let me spin that!
2 Likes
That chart does not have enough info. Who’s or what assets are we looking at here?
Neither did Tom’s. See what I mean? From the exact same source
And this little nugget of information, I am not sure what to make of this.
https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/in-brief/index.html
1 Like
What is the source? I clicked on the OP’s and Tom’s links and am not seeing these charts.
Same as I posted, FDIC
3 Likes
And why so skeptical all of the sudden? Charts are to be believed.
2 Likes
My bad, I didn’t see that source listed until you pointed it out.
1 Like
I think if folks want to blame anyone, they actually need to research why banks fail. 90% of the time, it’s the Bank’s own fault. Not outside or economic conditions…
3 Likes
I’m not skeptical (yet). I just wanted to get to the source so I could see what they are talking about.
So I’m thinking the “assets” bar is total assets of the banks that failed in that year? 2023 and 2008 look to be outliers. I bet a little digging would turn up why.
It is likely Trump’s fault more than Biden’s. Ironically, Barney Frank lobbied to water down his bill/banking regulations.
1 Like
Good, dig! That was my point all along. These charts/stats are meaningless without context or accountability.
1 Like