No, no, no, it would be the 1.66th bank (judging by the fraction)!

Posted by: Daniel Bathgate at September 7, 2006 01:32 AM

Exactly. It's a bank for the first two thrids of the second. It's somewhere between the first bank and the second bank.

More seriously, I'd venture a guess that this bank is the result of a merger between the fifth bank and the third bank.

Posted by: Glenn Lasher at September 7, 2006 07:01 AM

Sounds like a five-way tie for Third (or maybe the bank was a little embarrassed about being the Seventh).

Posted by: tartan at September 7, 2006 08:32 AM

I think its the Third National Bank.

They just came out of bankruptcy for the fourth time.

Posted by: arcticJKL at September 7, 2006 10:34 AM

Wouldn't it be the 1 2/3 bank then?

Posted by: Reed Hedges at September 7, 2006 10:50 AM

There is nothing broken about it. This bank has been around and using that name for almost 100 years.

From WikiPedia: "Fifth Third's unusual name is the result of the June 1, 1908 merger of two banks, The Fifth National Bank and The Third National Bank, to become The Fifth Third National Bank of Cincinnati."

Posted by: sodium11 at September 7, 2006 11:26 AM

Jeez sodium11, this is the Just for Fun category. Lighten up and don't take things so seriously!

Posted by: Chris at September 7, 2006 03:11 PM

_@_v - this ennywhere near the firth of forth?

Posted by: she-snailie_@_v at September 8, 2006 12:19 AM

The Straight Dope actually explained this quite well (see http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020118.html for the scoop).

The REAL question is not why there was in the past First, Second, Fourth National Banks, but why they are ALL First National Banks or Churches now. I mean, they can't ALL be first! What's the deal with everybody claiming to be first so much that it has come to mean nothing at all?

Posted by: Erich at September 8, 2006 04:47 AM

Oh, this is most certainly broken. Just because it has existed for many years, doesn't make it not broken.

The best we can hope for is that this bank gets bought by some other bank, whose nonsensical name will illicit less scratching of heads. It has to be really annoying working there (especially PR) and having to deal with all the questions about the name.

Posted by: Ben Thoma at September 8, 2006 12:18 PM

"The best we can hope for is that this bank gets bought by some other bank, whose nonsensical name will illicit less scratching of heads."

Clearly, what Cincinnatti needs instead of a bank buying the naming rights to a sports stadium, is to have one of their sports teams buy the naming rights to this bank. Then it can be, e.g., BengalBank.

Posted by: henrybowmanaz at September 9, 2006 12:01 AM

this is not funny, how customers suposed to gain trust to bank with such name, is they a regulatory body that suppose to oversee such initiations. An I am just curious what possble marketing capmpaign they would construct around such name ? what moto word and slogan they can choose? any info on that, is there any ?

Posted by: Gordonii at September 11, 2006 03:08 AM

"The best we can hope for is that this bank gets bought by some other bank, whose nonsensical name will illicit less scratching of heads."

Chase already has "One" in their composite title from acquiring Bank One (JP Morgan Chase One). Going with Reed's suggestion, it would become the JP Morgan Chase One and Two Thirds Bank.

Posted by: Kris at September 13, 2006 05:32 PM

Would you trust your money to people who use improper fractions?

Posted by: Kat2 at September 13, 2006 09:29 PM