The First National Bank of Scott City Reviews: Assets

Reading the The First National Bank of Scott City reviews data on this page

Start with one distinction: what we publish for The First National Bank of Scott City are medians, not averages.

A median is the midpoint: half of the institution sits above it and half below. Averages get dragged around by a handful of extreme values — one very expensive property, one unusually large loan, one graduate earning far more than their classmates — so a median is the safer number to plan against. Total assets of $174 million and branch count of 1.

Treat these as a baseline for opening a savings, checking or CD account, not a quote. Your own position depends on details no dataset holds: credit history, the exact street, the specific product on offer this week.

Turning the The First National Bank of Scott City data into a decision

Context does most of the work here. A number is only high or low next to something else, so we publish The First National Bank of Scott City and how it sits inside Kansas against a wider benchmark on the same measure. Headquarters of Scott City, Kansas.

Small gaps tell you nothing — sampling error alone can produce them. Large gaps almost always have a physical cause: the age of the housing stock, commuting distance, the balance between renters and owners, or a single large employer setting local pay.

Read the measures as a set. Income on its own says little; income next to housing cost and next to what similar households pay elsewhere says a great deal.

Putting The First National Bank of Scott City next to the alternatives

Comparison is the fastest way to tell a genuinely unusual institution from an ordinary one. We benchmark The First National Bank of Scott City against Kansas and against the national picture on the same definitions, in the same period, so the difference you see is a real difference rather than an artefact of two datasets disagreeing.

Watch the denominator whenever a comparison surprises you. Whether a rate is calculated on all applications or only completed ones, on every unit or only those on the market, changes the answer more than the local market does.

When the underlying sample is too small for a reliable estimate, we publish nothing for that measure rather than modelling a plausible-looking figure. Fewer numbers you can trust beats more you cannot.

Five checks worth running first

None of this needs a spreadsheet. It needs the discipline of checking the same handful of things every time, whether you are opening a savings, checking or CD account for the first time or the fifth.

• Confirm the rate you were quoted is the standard rate, not a promotional tier that resets after a few months.
• Check the minimum balance and the monthly maintenance fee, which can quietly outweigh the interest earned.
• Write down the monthly number you can genuinely cover, not the maximum a lender or admissions office says you qualify for.
• Compare at least three offers. Pricing on the same product varies more between providers than most people expect, and the gap is yours to keep.
• Check the fee schedule and the fine print, not the headline rate — that is where the real cost usually hides.
• Ask what the number looks like in a bad year, not an average one, and make sure the plan still holds.

Common questions

Sources, method and limits

The page is assembled from quarterly regulatory filings, specifically the FDIC Institution Directory and Summary of Deposits (2026-09-16). Nothing here is modelled from a proprietary black box: every figure traces to a published record, and where we derive a ratio we show both inputs so the arithmetic can be checked.

Be aware of what the data cannot do. Small-area estimates are noisier than headline national ones, every source reports on a delay, and no median describes the outliers that people most often remember.

Where a source revises a figure, the revised value replaces the old one rather than sitting alongside it, so the page always reflects the current official position. If you spot a number that looks wrong, it is worth telling us — corrections get made against the source record, not by guesswork.