As chairman and CEO of Charter Pacific Bank, I would like to take exception to certain inferences within your Aug. 23, “The Handful of Remaining Valley Based Banks Had Strong Year.” By inference, the article indicated that the greater growth achieved by a bank, the stronger the bank, while noting that Charter Pacific, with a slight decline in assets, was the only bank on the list with an asset decline. Clearly, growth is only one measurement of a bank’s health, and in my view, growth for growth’s sake is not necessarily prudent or profitable. At Charter Pacific Bank, we emphasize safety and soundness, as demonstrated by our having the highest capital ratios on the list and nearly the lowest ratio of non-performing assets to total assets, and on shareholder returns, where we were by far the best performing bank on the list, with a 2.68 percent return on average assets and a 23.36 percent return on average equity. Further, it should be noted that our total assets at June 30, 1998 were artificially impacted by one short term non-recurring deposit, and that Charter Pacific’s total assets have actually grown by $6.1 million, or 6.7 percent, since December 31, 1998. I believe that a more thorough measurement would be achieved by looking at overall profitability, fundamental strength through solid capital ratios, and maintenance of low levels of problem assets, not merely at point-in-time asset growth comparisons. All too often, rapid growth in a bank’s assets is a harbinger of future problems, not financial strength. Michael C. Ward