MACON, Ga. (The NYT) -- H. Averett Walker used hot money to turn Security Bank from a sleepy Southern lender into a regional powerhouse. Darrell D. Pittard used hot money to jump-start his brand-new MagnetBank, allowing it to lend hundreds of millions of dollars even though it did not have a single drive-up window or even a customer with a checking account.

It is a formula being replicated at banks across the United States. Rather than simply wooing local customers, they have turned to out-of-state brokers who deliver billions of dollars in bulk deposits, widely known as “hot money,” from investors nationwide. In fast-growing regions like this one in central Georgia, the money produced record bank profits and financed whole new communities, built at a phenomenal rate.
But the hot money also came with a high cost. To lure the money from brokers, banks typically had to offer unusually high rates. That, in turn, often led them to make ever riskier loans, leaving them vulnerable when the economy collapsed. Magnet failed early this year and Security Bank is barely hanging on.
Though few people have heard of it, hot money — or brokered deposits, as it is also known in the industry — is one of the primary factors in the accelerating wave of failures among small and regional banks nationwide. The estimated cost to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation over the last 18 months is $7.7 billion, and growing.
Hot money has bedeviled regulators for three decades and they are starting to fight back, albeit tentatively, devising new restrictions to keep the practice from taking more banks down. But in one of the hidden lobbying battles in Washington this year, the banks are pushing hard to keep the money flowing.
So far the banks are winning, and the hot money continues to fuel bank growth. The industry has even invented variants to get around the few rules that have been put in place by regulators.
Banks defend the use of brokered deposits as an important tool to bring in money to help communities grow. But even some industry executives acknowledge that certain banks became too dependent on the deposits, and that this abuse caused banks to fail. The consequences can be seen across the country.
The 79 banks that have failed in the United States over the last two years had an average load of brokered deposits four times the national norm, according to an analysis performed for The New York Times by Foresight Analytics, an industry research firm based in California. And a third of the failed banks, the analysis shows, had both an unusually high level of brokered deposits and an extremely high growth rate — often a disastrous recipe for banks.
The data also shows that the problem isn’t likely to go away. The 371 still-operating banks on Foresight’s “watch list” as of March held brokered deposits that, on average, were twice the norm. Even this year, in the depth of the recession, a number of struggling banks have been piling up hot money in a desperate effort to survive.
It is the same mix — rapid increases in hot money and heavy lending for risky real estate development — that brought down many of the savings and loans in the late 1980s.
Regulators now acknowledge that they saw the warning signs during the most recent boom, but failed to take aggressive action. “We went through this golden age of banking and I just think that everybody lost their compass,” said Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.