1/ A 🧵ON THE @federalreserve's precedent-setting 86-page @custodiabank order, released on Friday. Custodia just published a blog post highlighting the newly-articulated Fed policies + the procedural abnormalities it reveals. custodiabank.com/press/custodia…
2/ First, the policy items. Here are the first two:
3/ The third is new & raises lots of questions, esp since the Fed appears to have made a significant break from the President's Working Group's recommendation that #stablecoins only be issued by banks. There may be a new "catch 22" here:
4/ Related, there's increasing chatter about the Fed's own #CBDC project in the context of the Fed's actions regarding Custodia:🤔
5/ As I've said in recent interviews I've seen no evidence that the coordinated #crypto crackdown is about clearing the runway of private competitors to a #CBDC. But chatter about the topic is growing louder.
Speaking *personally* a U.S. retail CBDC is a hill worth dying on.
6/ The fourth gets into the role of States in the dual banking system, where both States & the federal govt (the OCC) have equal power to charter banks. The Fed just opened a new chapter in long tug-of-war re: Washington DC's efforts to federalize banking. States may take issue:
7/ The fifth is related--the Fed created a de facto new standard that all Fed member banks must be FDIC-insured (a "critical tool in preventing bank runs"). Hmmm...interesting in light of the bank runs at FDIC-insured banks that unfolded just weeks after the Fed wrote the order🤷♀️
8/ Next is a discussion of the procedural abnormalities--a few of which @custodiabank details in its post. (Here's a live link to the banking law expert's analysis referred to in the screenshot: bankregblog.substack.com/p/four-things-…)
9/ Banks especially may find these noteworthy:
10/ continuing...
11/ Per @custodiabank: "There are many other procedural abnormalities, but the above are likely the ones most relevant to other banks combing the Fed’s precedent-setting order for clues as to how the Fed will approach its future disclosure of confidential supervisory information"
12/ And on the topic of Fed disclosure of confidential supervisory information (CSI), here's what Fed vice chair Barr said just today (!)👇Compare his statement to the magnitude of CSI disclosure in the 86-page @custodiabank order. #WatchWhatIDoNotWhatISay federalreserve.gov/newsevents/tes…
13/ Here's the closing of @custodiabank's blog. "#digitalassets are not going away, and neither is Custodia." As always, thanks for all of your support! 💪
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ ANOTHER 🧵 ON A KEY QUESTION: astute thinkers are asking why community banks matter & how widespread this panic cld become. Dunno--but it *cld* spill over to big banks. One scenario: if FDIC depletes its insur fund, it borrows from US Treasury--which relies on primary dealers.
2/ Many people are saying big banks are safe bc they hedged the interest rate "gap risk" that is now plaguing community banks + they've had fewer deposit withdrawals. Yes, short-term. But here's the scenario:
3/ FDIC insurance fund at 12/31/22 had $128.2bn (per @FDICgov). FDIC can borrow up to $100bn from the US Treasury if it ever needs additional funds. 2 issues:
a) US debt ceiling limit could come into play, &
b) US Treasury relies on primary dealers to handle US Treasury auctions
1/ SVB—WHAT WENT WRONG
* mgmt: debauched its balance sheet
* depositors >$250k: thought their deposit at a fractional-reserve bank wasn’t an unsecured loan to a leveraged borrower (it is)
* Fed as regulator: that morning, the top cop said Fed-supervised banks don’t have bank runs
2/ * Fed FOMC: created the “gap risk” now kneecapping community banks (which met their bank capital rqmts by buying long-term bonds)
* bank risk managers: didn’t realize such gap risk (unhedged risk of a spike in interest rates) would morph into big liquidity risk amid a bank run
3/ * the existence of fractional-reserve banking: means the system is inherently unstable & prone to bank runs bc it’s insolvent as a whole
* banks: didn’t raise equity capital at first sign of trouble
* bond mkt: who knows where true interest rates wld be if not manipulated?
1/ I'VE BEEN THINKING abt #crypto & banking, which is in the news these days (& I'm living it too). I've spent yrs thinking abt the issues. Yes it *IS* possible for trad banks to safely bank #crytpo industry: simply back demand deposits 100% w/ cash held in a Fed master acct.💡
2/ But that's NOT what the US banks banking #crypto generally are doing. Pls see for yourselves by reviewing their financial statements--you'll see, eg, >10yr securities backing demand deposits that customers cld withdraw in minutes🤦♀️. That's a prob but isn't inherent to #crypto!
3/ I just finished updating a balance sheet analysis of the banks that bank #crypto & something jumped out at me--8x, which is a number I've seen before. When any bank puts 8x its shareholders' equity at risk in anything & that thing goes haywire, the outcome is predictable.🔮💡
1/ IT'S TIME FOR ME TO REVEAL A FEW THINGS. I've just published a post "Shame On Washington, DC For Shooting A Messenger Who Warned Of #Crypto Debacle." Link to post is here: caitlin-long.com/shame-on-washi…
2/ First, the revelations. Today, I’m publicly disclosing for the first time that (a) I handed over evidence to law enforcement of probable crimes committed by a big crypto fraud, starting months before that company imploded and stuck its millions of customers with losses, and...
3/ (b) I warned bank regulators of mounting bank-run risk inside banks serving the crypto industry b4 the bank runs ultimately hit.
How many correctly foresaw the crypto lender implosion, warned regulators of impending bank runs & tried to help law enforcement stop a big fraud?
tl;dr--it doesn't kill #crypto custody; it's a move against state-chartered trust companies; there's one big issue, tho, which will trigger huge pushback
2/ THE BIG ISSUE (& I haven't seen anyone point this out yet)=the rqmt for custodians to indemnify for "negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct." All the banking, #WallSt, commodities & #crypto industries will push back together on this bc it could kill custody biz broadly
3/ What's the issue? Proposal wld apply Custody Rule to all asset classes incl commodities & #crypto (ie, not just securities)--OK, fine. But SEC also wants custodians to indemnify FULL asset value for losses in which custodian played ANY role (eg, an oil tanker sinks; cows die).
A KEY from proposed changes to SEC Custody Rule: account must protect customer assets in event of custodian insolvency. This prob means qualified custodians must be under statutory receivership regime to protect segregation in insolvency & state-chartered trust cos in crosshairs
Yep, here's more. Gensler was clear abt this in his prepared remarks & here it is in writing: Assets passing OUTSIDE OF THE BANK'S INSOLVENCY is key. Translation: SEC wants all qualified custodians to be subject to special receivership regime, ie not subject to US Bankruptcy Code
More: lookin' good so far for state-chartered special purpose depository institutions under statutory receivership regimes that keep assets outside of bank's estate (ie, #Wyoming SPDI banks). SEC asks for comment on whether to do away w/ dual banking system but doesn't propose it