Dec. 29 American Banker Article

http://www.onwallstreet.com/asset/article/2649211/fewer-bank-failures-than-expected-2008.html?pg=

Observers said that experience influenced the way the FDIC handled the subsequent 20 failures.
"It's fair to say that the FDIC did not want another IndyMac," Mr. Dennis said. "They do not want CNN panning crowds lined up to try and get their deposits before the bank opens in the morning."
Since then the vast majority of the FDIC's receiverships have covered uninsured depositors, preventing the kind of fallout that results from customers losing money. Of the 20 banks that failed after IndyMac, 16 of the transactions fully covered uninsured customers.
Some observers raised questions that the FDIC had violated its statutory mandate to find the least costly resolution, arguing that while protecting all depositors may be in the public interest, it is not the law.
"The statute doesn't say anything about public confidence," said Bert Ely, an independent consultant based in Virginia and a critic of the agency. "I don't have a problem with protecting all depositors, but there ought to be an open debate about it."
But FDIC officials said protecting depositors was not their idea, but the result of the bidding process. Some observers said banks are more likely after IndyMac to seek to protect deposits for fear of starting a panic.
"If the bidders are willing to pay enough traditional money to pay the uninsured, then they're protected," said Art Murton, the director of the FDIC's division of insurance and research. "That's not something really we control. It's really a function of the value of the franchise, and how the bidders view it."
It is clear, however, that the FDIC has responded to failures more creatively since IndyMac.