shore bank

The closely held nature of ShoreBank by a small number of mission-aligned investors created some long-term structural issues.

ShoreBank helped raise the capital and managed the bank for a number of years until Southern Development Bancorporation's board took over.

ShoreBank also proved to be a catalytic presence in its community, in the banking industry, and throughout the world.

He noted the heavy travel schedule of ShoreBank's founders, and a management structure that required much direct supervision.

As a bank holding company, ShoreBank could offer a more potent mix of financial products and tools to boost economic development.

Four days later, ShoreBank was closed by order of the state of Illinois and Urban Partnership purchased its assets.

These challenges were seen as part of the learning process; they never forced a rethinking of ShoreBank's mission or its business model.

The mission was timely and the founders viewed it as an opportunity to expand ShoreBank's deposits and operations.

The ethos of moderate financial returns and strong social returns was made possible, in part, by the expectations of ShoreBank's investors.

Within months, however, ShoreBank found itself in deep trouble as a sharp rise in job losses hit its borrowers.

It is owned by the financial institutions, foundations, companies, and individuals that sought to continue ShoreBank.

ShoreBank also started other nonprofits and for-profits to further its social mission.

ShoreBank also provides a cautionary lesson about new organizational models and resource limitations.

The closing of ShoreBank presents a fascinating set of puzzles for analysts.

On May 26, ShoreBank Corporation announced further changes, bringing in a new executive leadership team to support Surgeon.

Various explanations have been offered about why ShoreBank failed.

From June to August, negotiations took place as to how ShoreBank would be closed. There were few bidders.

But the closure brought to a bitter end an iconic example of progressive social enterprise.

In 1997, ShoreBank became the first banking corporation in the United States to address environmental issues.

Over time, the ShoreBank Corporation was "modestly profitable, " to use Grzywinski's words.

Not long after the Arkansas project, ShoreBank initiated a program in Michigan, and then in Cleveland and later in Detroit.

ShoreBank's social enterprise accomplishments ran headlong into the 2008 financial crisis.

To extract lessons from ShoreBank's failure one must understand its remarkable history.

The ShoreBank story virtually defines the toxic politics of Washington today.

As a result, the application was not forwarded to the Treasury Department for further consideration.

Like many financial institutions, ShoreBank was hit hard by America's housing bust.

As ShoreBank's fundraising continued, a new management team was installed.

ShoreBank was founded in 1973 in Chicago by a small group of colleagues from the Hyde Park Bank.

In time, however, it also became a political red flag, stirring to action opponents of the causes ShoreBank advocated.

A third possibility is that the interagency vote against CDCI funding for ShoreBank was a politicized vote.

ShoreBank began raising capital by issuing shares of common stock to private investors in the first quarter of 2009.

It responded well to the crisis, and the regional FDIC office recommended it receive CDCI funds.

Loans were revalued downward, and the need for new capital grew.

ShoreBank may have failed, but the movement it once led is stronger than ever.

Taken together, ShoreBank provides an important lesson about value creation that is social in nature.

So why did ShoreBank fail?

ShoreBank differed from traditional banks in both what it did and how it did it.

Another possible analysis is that ShoreBank suffered because it was not seen as "too big to fail. "