We examine the relative institutional failure risks for three sets of bank depositories: Community Development Banking Institutions (CDBIs), Minority Depositories (MDIs) and what we term Non-Mission Depository Institutions (NMDIs). CDBIs have primary missions of community development and serving underserved populations; MDIs are typically led by minorities and serve minority populations (a single institution can be both a CDBI and an MDI, either or neither). In this analysis, NMDIs represent all other depository banks. Given their operation within lower-income and minority communities, MDIs and CDBIs appear, prima facie, to face greater institutional failure risks. We examine these risks across each set of institutions, ceteris paribus. Utilizing data from a number of sources, including the Reports of Condition and Income (call reports) for a substantial set of FDIC-insured banks in the United States, we apply a modified Capital, Assets, Management, Earnings and Liquidity model (CAMEL) to measure the predictive likelihood of failure. Recognizing that MDIs are not homogeneous, we also examine relative institutional failure across types of depositories. The results indicate that CDBIs and MDIs are systematically at lower failure risks and that there are differences across service designations.

中文翻译：

---

风险有多大？基于任务的存款机构的比较机构风险

我们研究了三组银行存款机构的相对机构失灵风险：社区发展银行机构 (CDBIs)、少数族裔存款机构 (MDI) 和我们所说的非使命存款机构 (NMDIs)。CDBI 的主要任务是社区发展和服务欠缺人群；MDI 通常由少数族裔领导并为少数群体服务（一个机构既可以是 CDBI 也可以是 MDI，或者两者都不是）。在本分析中，NMDIs 代表所有其他存款银行。鉴于 MDI 和 CDBI 在低收入和少数族裔社区内运作，从表面上看，它们似乎面临更大的制度失败风险。在其他条件不变的情况下，我们检查了每组机构的这些风险。利用来自多个来源的数据，包括美国大量 FDIC 保险银行的状况和收入报告（电话报告），我们应用修改后的资本、资产、管理、收益和流动性模型 (CAMEL) 来衡量失败的预测可能性。认识到 MDI 不是同质的，我们还检查了不同类型的存款机构的相对制度失灵。结果表明，CDBI 和 MDI 系统性地具有较低的故障风险，并且服务名称之间存在差异。