Earnings of First Evanston Bancorp, Inc. for the first nine months of 2011 topped last year’s figures by 51 percent, the parent corporation of First Bank and Trust reported this week.
Net income for the company for the first nine months of the year amounted to $2,948,000, compared with $1,948,000 for the comparable period last year. Basic net income per share was $1.96, up 43 percent from $1.37 in 2010.
In a letter to stockholders, Robert R. Yohanon, the firm’s managing director and chief executive officer, noted that total assets, loans, and deposits all reached record highs at the end of the quarter on Sept. 30.
Assets stood at $651 million, compared with $599 million a year ago. Total loans, net of an allowance for loan losses, amounted to $479 million, compared with $429 million, and deposits reached $582 million, compared with $534 million.
First Bank continues to be the only bank on the North Shore and one of the few in the state of Illinois to hold a 5-star superior rating from BauerFinancial, Inc., Yohannon told stockholders. “Additionally, our general performance against both local and national peers is very favorable,” he said, “which has provided us with the ability to continue to attract new business and individual relationships.”
Yohannon expressed optimism for the bank’s prospects for 2012 and beyond, as the bank “continues to operate with very few problem loans, very strong liquidity and capital, and an excellent pipeline of prospective businesses.”
Chartered in 1995, the bank is headquartered in downtown Evanston and operates seven offices. It will be opening an eighth on Dec. 6 at the corner of Crawford Avenue and Dempster Street in Skokie. The new branch was designed to meet the requirements of a LEED Gold Certification, meeting standards set by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
Money begets money
Although I am glad there are some profitable businesses in these economic times, I find it difficult to be joyous about a bank – any bank – making such incredible profits when the interest rates they give to their customers savings accounts are so dismal.
Bank executives are in typically "the 1%" due to the unfair tax benefits that have been generously given by the Fed, with the rest of us footing the bill. The rules seem to always benefit banks, no matter which side of the situation they are on. Money begets money.
liberal talking points
"the 1%?" another liberal, non sensical talking point. I'm a facts person, not a political person.
The tax system in this country is progressive, the more money you make, the higher your tax rate. Is that a fact or not? Some will suggest that along with higher taxable incomes come more deductions, leading to lower amounts of taxes paid. I've never seen data that backs that up. All I know is that I'm paying more than 50% in federal, state, local, municipal and other taxes. My incentive to hire more people is simply not there.
"the rest of us footing the bill?" about half of potential tax payors pay zero in taxes. I guess it depends on exactly whom you're referring to when you say the "rest of us are footing the bill."
and another thing
Not only do I doubt your claim that you pay 50% of your income in taxes, I question this:
""the rest of us footing the bill?" about half of potential tax payors pay zero in taxes"
This is a common Fox News talking point, people paying 'zero in taxes'. This refers to Federal INCOME taxes….not state sales tax, not Federal payroll tax, not municipal taxes. You seem to be willing to count those sources of taxation when describing YOUR tax bill ("All I know is that I'm paying more than 50% in federal, state, local, municipal and other taxes")….so why are you repeating this FOX News talking point?
High Taxes
This is taken from Peter Schiff's website regarding your tax question. If you don't know of Peter Schiff, google "Peter Schiff and predicts crisis."
"The new political spin echoed in Democrat talking points in coast to coast is that the rich are paying the lowest taxes since 1950. The bogus statistic results from the meaningless fact that federal tax revenues currently "only" constitute 16% of GDP. However this figure is rendered meaningless when considering the inflated nature of today's GDP figures, and the exclusion of rising state and local taxes. When it comes to tax burdens, GDP means nothing. What counts is what percentage of income taxpayers actually fork over. Those numbers tell a different tale.
Today a married couple with a combined income of $250,000 (assuming each spouse earns 125,000) will pay about 40% of their combined incomes in Social Security, Medicare, and federal taxes, if they take the standard deduction. (I have included as part of their incomes and taxes the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid on their behalf by their employers – which in reality are borne by the employee anyway. I then added that figure to their incomes, and divided the total tax paid by that higher income. I did not factor in this year's one time 2% payroll tax holiday.)
Compare that to a household in 1950 that earned $25,000 per year (the approximate equivalent to $250,000 today). Assuming all the income was earned by the husband, which was the norm at the time, the total tax take using the standard deduction and including both the employee and employer social security taxes, would have been just below 22%. In other words, despite claims that taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years, today's high earning couple pays over 80% more in federal taxes than their 1950 counterpart!
My guess however is that the real difference is even greater. In both instances I used the standard deductions to arrive at taxable income. But the 1950 code was far more generous than the current code in its allowances for tax shelters. As a result, my guess is that the typical couple making itemized deductions in 1950 paid less than half the amount of their modern equivalent. Of course back then there were also far fewer states imposing their own income taxes, and those that did generally had much lower rates than what prevails today. Local sales and property taxes were also lower.
It is interesting to note that about 45% of the total federal tax paid by this modern couple went to Social Security and Medicare. In 1950, Social Security represented less than 1.5% of their total federal tax (Medicare did not yet exist). If you just compare income taxes alone, the modern couple pays 24% in tax and the 1950s couple paid about 21.5%. It is no accident that advocates for higher taxes fail to mention this issue.
The debt problem does not stem from low taxes, but from high spending. I do not expect a deal to lift the debt limit will make any meaningful impact on either. Unfortunately both taxes and spending are likely to head higher in the years ahead. Americans should prepare for the sad reality."
And another thing for you.
In defence of the person being attacked for stating they pay 50% in taxes, that is very, very easy to come up with. For you to claim he exceeds 380K in earnings is biased, unfounded and unfair. Quite possible that person resides in the 33% bracket of +175K up to 379K.
The fed. tax rate for a household earning +175K to 379K annually is 33%, on 175K thats 57,750. The state tax rate is now 5% which equals 8,750. That person sounded like a small business person who employs people, as am I. So that means he/she must pay 100% of all his medicare and social security taxes, taxes which companies kick in on behalf of their employees. That means on 175K he is paying around 14,000 for those two taxes. This alone now basically adds up to 50% of his/her income. And we haven't even begun to talk about sales taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, gas taxes, cell phone taxes, and every other nickle and dime tax that we all are forced to pay.
Also consider, since it sounds like that person is a small business owner and job creater, that means he not only pays property tax on his residential property, but also property tax on his business location, which is taxed at double the assesssed value of a residential tax. That's like paying 3 property tax bills compared to the average joe's one. And let's not forget the myriad extra fee's, taxes, and regulatory nonsense every small business must endure that his claim of not wanting to hire is completely valid and easily understood by anyone who knows better.
All in all, he/she easily pays way over 50% of income in taxes. Whether they earn the 175K or even the 380K annual figure.
Finally, the top 10% of income earners in the country pay 70% of all federal income taxes collected. Close to 50% of the population pays 0% in federal income taxes. That isn't a fox news channel talking point, that is a simple fact you can verify with the IRS. All your yammering about cigeratte consumption is clueless and insulting.
Some fun FOX facts about taxation
Your posting is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings and misleading FOX 'facts'. Let's start with the most basic :
"The fed. tax rate for a household earning +175K to 379K annually is 33%, on 175K thats 57,750."
Clearly you do not understand what a marginal tax rate is.
The 33% marginal tax rate starts at 175K. That does not mean, as you say, that a person with an income of 175K pays 33% of their income or 57,750.
Here is why:
This all adds up to less than 43000- much less than the 57500 you claim – and I didn't even take the standard deduction, or mortgage interest, or deduct for property tax paid or state income tax paid, or pre-tax retirement or health contributions.
So basically the 50% of income being paid in tax claim is bogus. You are double counting state income tax and property tax, mixing up marginal rates vs. total tax rates, ignoring deductions, and mixing up payroll and sales tax (regressive) with income tax (progressive).
This sums it up
Just in case you haven't seen this yet …
Getting back to bankers and their profits…
The original point is that as "community" oriented as one reply claims First Bank and Trust of Evanston to be, the fact is that they have made a LOT of money by lending at high rates of interest (even at 4%) for them and giving back miniscule interest to the savers (a 5 yr. CD gets 1.4%) .
I am not saying that this group of bankers is any worse than the rest of them…but let's face it, they are all greedy and other than using your matteress, they have a lock hold on the industry. All this is supposed to be regulated by the government, but the government is filled with people with lots of money and who keep all of this "regulation for the good of everyone" mostly good for people who make the most money. This is what the average Joe or Jane is angry about.
Sheer Ignorance, but not a surprise
How do you define "incredible profits" ?? Just because the bank has increased their earnings shouldn't make them a target of your comments suggesting untoward conduct by the bank. Evanstonians should celebrate the success of First Evanton Bancorp. This is a local bank that generously supports our community, provides employment, and provides loans to businesses and consumers to help them grow and prosper. Painting the "bank executives" with the 1% populist brush is a pathetic comment. And lastly your ignorance shows through with your lack of understanding that the legislative branch of our government establishes tax policy, not the Federal Reserve Bank.
And no, I don't work for the bank or any bank, I'm just a struggling artist.
50% of your income in taxes? I don’t believe it.
Regarding the comment below that:
All I know is that I'm paying more than 50% in federal, state, local, municipal and other taxes. My incentive to hire more people is simply not there.
You are paying more than 50% in taxes?
This is interesting…I wonder how you get to this number:
Let's assume you are in the top Federal bracket (35%), which means you have an income of over 379K. The MARGINAL rate is 35%.
Add 6% for the state taxes. Sure, there are social security taxes and medicare taxes…but those stop around 120K, which is well below where the 35% rate begins. These are not progressive taxes ("the more money you make, the higher your tax rate")
Then there are sales taxes too…but you would have to be spending a lot of money on taxable items there, and I still don't see how it could push your rate up to 50%….unless you spend all of your disposable income on cigarettes and other highly taxed items. And this is not a progressive tax ("the more money you make, the higher your tax rate")
Oh yes…property taxes…maybe you have a very big, big, big house and the taxes make up a big percent of your income….but this is not a progressive tax ( "the more money you make, the higher your tax rate").
I don't see how you can come up with a 50% tax rate…and if you do, it is not due to 'progressive taxation'….maybe you are living in a McMansion that you really can't afford, or spending too much money on cigarettes…. I'd like a rough breakdown of the numbers.
you’d like a rough breakdown of the numbers?
First of all, I live in a house I can very well afford, and I've never smoked. If I buy wine, I do it in Wilmette to avoid paying the enormous Evanston alcohol tax.
So you can't figure out how I can pay more than 50% in tax?. My only suggestion to you is to work for 30 years like I have, 60 hours a week, run your own business, get your income levels to where mine is and perhaps someday an astute accountant will be able to explain to you how to get to my total tax rate.
Good luck.