Statements such as the foregoing should become more commonplace in the SEC filings by banks generally. While there is always room for concern in light of this statement, knowing what their auditors' report says would be helpful. If the auditors' report identifies the entity as in jeopardy of no longer being a “going concern,” then there should be unease. In between the announcement above and the next auditors’ report, the financial quality of information and conclusions about this company will be dependent upon what the company says about itself and how well independent financial analysts are able to diagnose how well ongoing operations are meeting the objectives as stated. At times neither is all that objective or reliable.

Are you implying that First Mariner management is incapable of meeting or has no intention of meeting the terms or deadlines in the agreement? Per management the first deadline is March 31, 2010 and it intends on complying and has the ability to comply with the agreement. I have no reason to discount or doubt those claims, do you?

Without SEC filings, how is it that you propose that the PROGRESS on compliance be followed by those of us with little or no verifiable “inside” information? It is what RMD references in the article. How are you getting your information to reach your conclusion about the likelihood of deep trouble?

Auditors are required to disclose if they believe First Mariner cannot reasonably meet or do not intend on meeting the deadlines if in their determination it could materially impact First Mariner. To some of us the opinion of auditors has much higher credibility than the mere speculation of one who uses a name other than his/her own and bases the likelihood of deep trouble solely on some undisclosed (and apparently very subjective) criteria.

No one doubts a FDIC C & D order is anything other than serious. However, if the FDIC is agreeing to deadlines starting more than six months from now, it is hardly of the nature that shutdown is imminent. Somehow FDIC is satisfied that the agreement meets its standards for delaying more punitive actions.

On to your direct accusation — who or what “Security One” is, I have no idea. If you are referring to Security One Lending, Inc. headquartered in San Diego, CA, our CFO has confirmed your generalization is groundless; our auditors would have disclosed that. ReverseDisclosure made the same accusation last Wednesday in a comment to a 9/22/2009 RMD article titled “Reverse Mortgage Lenders Get Creative to Fund Ginnie Mae HMBS”. I challenged ReverseDisclosure to take appropriate action with no response. Are you also ReverseDisclosure?

I extend the challenge to you. If your claim has substance, please call our San Diego office at (866) 480-4715 and ask for the CFO or ask the receptionist to leave me a message; however, we do not pay fraudulent or frivolous claims or the claims of unrelated parties. We take your accusation very seriously and will respond.