AEvidence-led provider article
Arundel Bank: evidence, responsibilities and open questions
Arundel Bank is assessed from dated identity, permission and outcome evidence. This article separates verified facts from findings that the current record cannot support.
What the record establishes
The legal name currently recorded is Arundel Bank. Arundel Bank is catalogued for Banking, Business lending, Consumer lending, and Mortgages and the current record places its market scope in United States.
ServeAssess accepted 88 claim level facts and linked 7 sources as of 2026-07-21. Verification strength is 90/100, while research completeness is 47/100 against the fields expected for this category and role.
Responsibility and permission
Arundel Bank is recorded as legal entity and Arundel Bank is recorded as marketing brand. The role map controls which party receives a licence, financial metric or complaint finding.
8 product and jurisdiction permission records are active or exempt in the current map. No restricted, suspended, withdrawn or unverified permission appears in that map.
What the outcome evidence can support
The current assessment can score 1 of six substantive outcome dimensions. RegulatoryStanding is 88/100 within the eligible peer group. Current permissions and restrictions are assessed separately from enforcement history. Registration confirms status, not service quality.
The comparable metrics ledger contains 3 latest observations. Each value enters a dimension only when its direction, period, denominator and peer group support a fair comparison.
Price, access and intended customers
Pricing disclosure is recorded as unknown. Customer eligibility has not been classified. No access channel has passed the current evidence check.
For banking, the decision is which legal institution holds the account, what protection applies and whether the product remains competitive after fees and access limits. The current record should be used with the written offer or contract rather than as a substitute for it.
Limits that affect the decision
The following limits are part of the assessment and should remain visible beside any favourable finding.
- CustomerOutcomes lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
- FinancialResilience lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
- OperationalReliability lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
- PriceAndContractQuality lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
- TransparencyAndGovernance lacks enough comparable evidence for a score.
- Verification strength describes the research record. It is not a provider quality rating.
- Research completeness measures category relevant coverage. It does not reward a broad product catalogue.
- Customer outcomes remain unscored until a valid exposure denominator and comparable handling data are available.
A focused verification path
A banking app may be a technology company while a separately named bank holds deposits, issues cards or makes loans. Bank charters and primary regulators may be federal or state, while branch access and product availability can still vary locally.
- Find the institution in FDIC BankFind or the NCUA locator.
- Match the legal name and certificate or charter number.
- Read the deposit insurance explanation for the exact account structure.
- Save the legal name, source URL and observation date used for the decision.
Article version 2026-07-full-site-v1 · 476 words · candidate A selected after automated editorial checks.
01Offering map
Services and access
United States scopeUnited States
Customer typesNot yet confirmed
AccessNot yet confirmed
Pricing disclosureunknown
02Structured assessment
Scores, factors and research limits
Verification strength90/100Identity, permissions, source quality and claim-level freshness.
Research completeness47/100Coverage against the fields relevant to this category and role.
Freshness100/100Average freshness of the accepted claims, not merely the page date.
Quality evidence: insufficient outcome data1 of 6 substantive dimensions currently scoreable. ServeAssess does not combine them into one universal quality score.
Regulatory standing17 supporting fields
88/100Current permissions and restrictions are assessed separately from enforcement history. Registration confirms status, not service quality.
Financial resilience or backing2 supporting fields · peer group banking|role-unknown|100m-1b|US
Insufficient dataDirectionally comparable resilience measures within the provider's role, category, size and jurisdiction peer group. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 2 eligible measures are present.
Price and contract quality0 supporting fields · peer group banking|role-unknown|100m-1b|US
Insufficient dataComparable price and contract measures. Published terms alone do not establish good value. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
Customer outcomes0 supporting fields · peer group banking|role-unknown|100m-1b|US
Insufficient dataComplaint volume is normalized by an exposure denominator and combined with handling measures. Complaints remain allegations, not findings. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
Operational reliability0 supporting fields · peer group banking|role-unknown|100m-1b|US
Insufficient dataComparable delivery, uptime, incident or processing measures within the same peer group. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
Transparency and governance1 supporting field
Insufficient dataPricing, contract, ownership, complaint route, privacy and responsible entity disclosures are not yet complete enough to score.
Evidence confidence91 supporting fields
93/100Identity resolution, source trust, claim support and claim level freshness.
Comparable observations
These dated values feed a dimension only when the method, denominator and peer group permit a fair comparison.
equity to assets percent13.57%2026-07-23 · officialreturn on assets percent0.07%2026-07-23 · officialreturn on equity percent0.48%2026-07-23 · official Verification and coverage factors
Identity9 supporting fields
73/100Legal identity, official domain, contact evidence and verified entity roles.
Regulation17 supporting fields
88/100Current permissions and restrictions are assessed separately from enforcement history. Registration confirms status, not service quality.
Evidence quality91 supporting fields
100/100Supported claims, high trust evidence and independent source coverage.
Service evidence3 supporting fields
45/100Whether the provider's claimed service is supported. Breadth is not rewarded.
Transparency1 supporting field
Insufficient dataPricing, contract, ownership, complaint route, privacy and responsible entity disclosures are not yet complete enough to score.
How to read this- Verification strength describes the research record. It is not a provider quality rating.
- Research completeness measures category relevant coverage. It does not reward a broad product catalogue.
- Customer outcomes remain unscored until a valid exposure denominator and comparable handling data are available.
- Financial resilience remains unscored until at least two comparable directional measures are available.
- Price and contract quality remains unscored until comparable cost and term measures are available.
- Operational reliability remains unscored until comparable delivery or incident data are available.
- An active registration confirms identity or permission in its stated scope. It is not a recommendation or service quality endorsement.
- ServeAssess does not publish a universal composite quality score across unlike provider roles.
Calculated 2026-07-23 from 7 independent sources.
Observed strengths
- Regulatory standing: 88/100 from 17 eligible evidence fields. Current permissions and restrictions are assessed separately from enforcement history. Registration confirms status, not service quality.
Limits and open questions
- Financial resilience or backing: insufficient comparable data. Directionally comparable resilience measures within the provider's role, category, size and jurisdiction peer group. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 2 eligible measures are present.
- Price and contract quality: insufficient comparable data. Comparable price and contract measures. Published terms alone do not establish good value. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
- Customer outcomes: insufficient comparable data. Complaint volume is normalized by an exposure denominator and combined with handling measures. Complaints remain allegations, not findings. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
- Operational reliability: insufficient comparable data. Comparable delivery, uptime, incident or processing measures within the same peer group. Comparable peer data is required for at least 2 measures; 0 eligible measures are present.
- Transparency and governance: insufficient comparable data. Pricing, contract, ownership, complaint route, privacy and responsible entity disclosures are not yet complete enough to score.
- Verification strength describes the research record. It is not a provider quality rating.
- Research completeness measures category relevant coverage. It does not reward a broad product catalogue.
- Customer outcomes remain unscored until a valid exposure denominator and comparable handling data are available.
Potential fit signals
No customer-fit conclusion is supported by the current record.
03Entity and role graph
Who markets, contracts, administers and carries the obligation
A brand can represent several legal parties. Complaints, financial facts and permissions must be attached to the party responsible for that function.
Arundel Banklegal entity
verifiedArundel Bankmarketing brand
reported04Permission map
Products, roles and jurisdictions
bankingUS · legal entity · OCC charter 702349
activeconsumer lendingUS · legal entity · OCC charter 702349
activebusiness lendingUS · legal entity · OCC charter 702349
activemortgagesUS · legal entity · OCC charter 702349
activebankingUS · legal entity · FDIC certificate 28780
activeconsumer lendingUS · legal entity · FDIC certificate 28780
activebusiness lendingUS · legal entity · FDIC certificate 28780
activemortgagesUS · legal entity · FDIC certificate 28780
activeUnderlying licence records
Office of the Comptroller of the CurrencyUS · OCC charter 702349
activeFederal Deposit Insurance CorporationUS · FDIC certificate 28780
active05Source ledger
Evidence behind this profile
ClaimConfidenceStatus
legal name: Arundel Bank98%accepted
regulatory status: active98%accepted
regulatory reference: OCC charter 702349; Federal Savings Association; FDIC certificate 28780 (insured); FRB RSSD 390372; headquarters 655 Crain Highway, SE Glen Burnie, MD 21061; chartered 05/01/193498%accepted
official domain: https://www.arundelfederal.com/98%accepted
occ charter number: 70234998%accepted
institution type: Federal Savings Association98%accepted
main office city: Glen Burnie98%accepted
main office state: MD98%accepted
corporate address: 655 Crain Highway, SE Glen Burnie, MD 2106198%accepted
trust bank: No98%accepted
charter date: 05/01/193498%accepted
fdic insurance status: Insured98%accepted
fdic certificate number: 2878098%accepted
frb rssd id: 39037298%accepted
fdic certificate number: 2878098%accepted
fdic active status: active98%accepted
main office address: 655 Crain Hwy S98%accepted
main office city: Glen Burnie98%accepted
main office state: MD98%accepted
main office postal code: 2106198%accepted