Fed's review into #SVB's failure is out. Key takeaways (thread):
1. SVB's board of directors and management failed to manage their risks;
2. Federal Reserve Supervisors did not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerabilities as SVIB grew in size and complexity;
(continued)
3. When supervisors did identify vulnerabilities, they didn't take sufficient steps to ensure that #SVB fixed those problems quickly enough;
(continued)
4. Fed's tailoring approach in response to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief & Consumer Protection Act and shift in stance of supervisory policy impeded effective supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting a less assertive supervisory approach.
The press release notes that at the time of its failure, #SVB had 31 unaddressed safe and soundness supervisory warnings - triple the average number for peer banks.
I've now read the Fed's report on the failure of SVB, and am reading the FDIC's report on the failure of SBNY. Meanwhile, an even bigger bank is on the verge of failure, for similar reasons to SVB and SBNY. I suspect there are more to come. 1/
Both the Fed and the FDIC lay the blame for the failures squarely at the door of bank management. This is right imho. But both - especially the Fed - also highlight inadequate supervision, in particular very slow enforcement of supervisory decisions.
But it's not reasonable to blame supervisors for the failure of bank management to address deficiencies. Bank management should have acted without waiting for enforcement.
Crypto investors discover the brutal reality of bankruptcy. If the money is gone, they can't have it back, however much they complain, shout, and threaten the judge.
Depositor haircuts are hardly new in cryptoland. But I suppose a 19-year-old is too young to remember Bitfinex's expropriation of customer deposits in 2016.
Creditor claims ranking exists to prevent food fights when assets are insufficient to honour all claims.
The negative terms of trade shock the UK has suffered is the largest since 1975. The inflationary effect has yet to drop out of the CPI figures. ons.gov.uk/economy/grossd…
In a negative terms of trade schock, the exchange rate becomes important for monetary policy. Raising interest rates to support the exchange rate limits import price rises and bears down on domestic inflation.
Though of course, if everyone raises interest rates to support their exchange rates, the effect is lost.
"The regulatory clampdown is a fine example of shutting the stable door after the horses have absconded with large amounts of people's money. Regulators are tasked with protecting the public, and they have manifestly failed to do so." coppolacomment.com/2023/03/what-r…
"In the past year, every one of the risks and abuses that the regulators list has been evident in the crypto world. And as a result, many people have lost money they could ill afford." coppolacomment.com/2023/03/what-r…
"Regulators are tasked with protecting the public, and they have manifestly failed to do so. This is the real scandal, not a fictitious "chokepoint" invented by people desperate to preserve a business model built on avoiding regulation." coppolacomment.com/2023/03/what-r…
Coppola Comment: What really happened to Signature Bank NY? Was it a solvent bank closed down by regulators to choke off crypto access to banking, as some have claimed? Or is there another explanation? (pic does not link) coppolacomment.com/2023/03/what-r…
This is my first look at the Operation Chokepoint 2.0 evidence. Have to say, it is not a good start. Their argument that SBNY was a solvent bank closed down by regulators unfriendly to crypto rests entirely on a single media report of remarks by Barney Frank.
And Barney Frank's remarks depend entirely on what he was told by SBNY management. He wasn't directly involved in their desperate attempts to keep the bank going over the weekend of 11/12 March.