Federal Deposit Insurance Corp

Latest story

138 Shares119 Views

How Trump’s Justice Dept. Derailed an Investigation of a Major Company

by

The industrial giant Caterpillar hired William Barr and other lawyers to defuse a federal criminal investigation of alleged tax dodges.In December 2018, a team of federal law enforcement agents flew to Amsterdam to interview a witness in a yearslong criminal investigation into Caterpillar, which had avoided billions of dollars of income taxes by shifting profits to a Swiss subsidiary.A few hours before the interview was set to begin, the agents were startled to hear that the Justice Department was telling them to cancel the long-planned meeting.The interview was never rescheduled, and the investigation would limp along for another few years before culminating, in late 2022, with a victory for Caterpillar. The Internal Revenue Service told the giant industrial company to pay less than a quarter of the back taxes the government once claimed that Caterpillar owed and did not impose any penalties. The criminal investigation was closed without charges being filed — and even without agents having the chance to review records seized from the company.Caterpillar appears to have defused the investigation at least in part by deploying a type of raw legal power that rarely becomes publicly visible. This account is based on interviews with people familiar with the investigation, regulatory filings and internal Justice Department emails provided to Senate investigators and reviewed by The New York Times.In the months leading up to the canceled interview in the Netherlands, Caterpillar had enlisted a small group of well-connected lawyers to plead the company’s case. Chief among those was William P. Barr, who had served as attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration.Richard Zuckerman, the Justice Department’s top tax official, stopped an investigation into Caterpillar after meeting with its lawyers.Jerry ZolynskyWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Late-Night Negotiating Frenzy Left First Republic in JPMorgan’s Control

    by

    The resolution of First Republic Bank came after a frantic night of deal making by government officials and executives at the country’s biggest bank.Lawmakers and regulators have spent years erecting laws and rules meant to limit the power and size of the largest U.S. banks. But those efforts were cast aside in a frantic late-night effort by government officials to contain a banking crisis by seizing and selling First Republic Bank to the country’s biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase.At about 1 a.m. Monday, hours after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had been expected to announce a buyer for the troubled regional lender, government officials informed JPMorgan executives that they had won the right to take over First Republic and the accounts of its well-heeled customers, most of them in wealthy coastal cities and suburbs.The F.D.I.C.’s decision appears, for now, to have quelled nearly two months of simmering turmoil in the banking sector that followed the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in early March. “This part of the crisis is over,” Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, told analysts on Monday in a conference call to discuss the acquisition.For Mr. Dimon, it was a reprise of his role in the 2008 financial crisis when JPMorgan acquired Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual at the behest of federal regulators.But the resolution of First Republic has also brought to the fore long-running debates about whether some banks have become too big too fail partly because regulators have allowed or even encouraged them to acquire smaller financial institutions, especially during crises.“Regulators view them as adults and business partners,” said Tyler Gellasch, president of Healthy Markets Association, a Washington-based group that advocates greater transparency in the financial system, referring to big banks like JPMorgan. “They are too big to fail and they are afforded the privilege of being so.”He added that JPMorgan was likely to make a lot of money from the acquisition. JPMorgan said on Monday that it expected the deal to raise its profits this year by $500 million.JPMorgan will pay the F.D.I.C. $10.6 billion to acquire First Republic. The government agency expects to cover a loss of about $13 billion on First Republic’s assets.`Normally a bank cannot acquire another bank if doing so would allow it to control more than 10 percent of the nation’s bank deposits — a threshold JPMorgan had already reached before buying First Republic. But the law includes an exception for the acquisition of a failing bank.The F.D.I.C. sounded out banks to see if they would be willing to take First Republic’s uninsured deposits and if their primary regulator would allow them to do so, according to two people familiar with the process. On Friday afternoon, the regulator invited the banks into a virtual data room to look at First Republic’s financials, the two people said. The government agency, which was working with the investment bank Guggenheim Securities, had plenty of time to prepare for the auction. First Republic had been struggling since the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, despite receiving a $30 billion lifeline in March from 11 of the country’s largest banks, an effort led by Mr. Dimon of JPMorgan.By the afternoon of April 24, it had became increasingly clear that First Republic couldn’t stand on its own. That day, the bank revealed in its quarterly earnings report that it had lost $102 billion in customer deposits in the last weeks of March, or more than half what it had at the end of December.Ahead of the earnings release, First Republic’s lawyers and other advisers told the bank’s senior executives not to answer any questions on the company’s conference call, according to a person briefed on the matter, because of the bank’s dire situation.The revelations in the report and the executives’ silence spooked investors, who dumped its already beaten-down stock.When the F.D.I.C. began the process to sell First Republic, several bidders including PNC Financial Services, Fifth Third Bancorp, Citizens Financial Group and JPMorgan expressed an interest. Analysts and executives at those banks began going through First Republic’s data to figure out how much they would be willing to bid and submitted bids by early afternoon Sunday.Regulators and Guggenheim then returned to the four bidders, asking them for their best and final offers by 7 p.m. E.T. Each bank, including JPMorgan Chase, improved its offer, two of the people said.Regulators had indicated that they planned to announce a winner by 8 p.m., before markets in Asia opened. PNC executives had spent much of the weekend at the bank’s Pittsburgh headquarters putting together its bid. Executives at Citizens, which is based in Providence, R.I., gathered in offices in Connecticut and Massachusetts. But 8 p.m. rolled by with no word from the F.D.I.C. Several hours of silence followed.For the three smaller banks, the deal would have been transformative, giving them a much bigger presence in wealthy places like the San Francisco Bay Area and New York City. PNC, which is the sixth-largest U.S. bank, would have bolstered its position to challenge the nation’s four large commercial lenders — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.Ultimately, JPMorgan not only offered more money than others and agreed to buy the vast majority of the bank, two people familiar with the process said. Regulators also were more inclined to accept the bank’s offer because JPMorgan was likely to have an easier time integrating First Republic’s branches into its business and managing the smaller bank’s loans and mortgages either by holding onto them or selling them, the two people said.As the executives at the smaller banks waited for their phones to ring, the F.D.I.C. and its advisers continued to negotiate with Mr. Dimon and his team, who were seeking assurances that the government would safeguard JPMorgan against losses, according to one of the people.At around 3 a.m., the F.D.I.C. announced that JPMorgan would acquire First Republic.An F.D.I.C. spokesman declined to comment on other bidders. In its statement, the agency said, “The resolution of First Republic Bank involved a highly competitive bidding process and resulted in a transaction consistent with the least-cost requirements of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.” The announcement was widely praised in the financial industry. Robin Vince, the president and chief executive of Bank of New York Mellon, said in an interview that it felt “like a cloud has been lifted.”Some financial analysts cautioned that the celebrations might be overdone.Many banks still have hundreds of billions of dollars in unrealized losses on Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities purchased when interest rates were very low. Some of those bond investments are now worth much less because the Federal Reserve has sharply raised rates to bring down inflation.Christopher Whalen of Whalen Global Advisors said the Fed fueled some of the problems at banks like First Republic with an easy money policy that led them to load up on bonds that are now performing poorly. “This problem will not go away until the Fed drops interest rates,” he said. “Otherwise, we’ll see more banks fail.”But Mr. Whalen’s view is a minority opinion. The growing consensus is that the failures of Silicon Valley, Signature and now First Republic will not lead to a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis that brought down Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.The assets of the three banks that failed this year are greater than of the 25 banks that failed in 2008 after adjusting for inflation. But 465 banks failed in total from 2008 to 2012.One unresolved issue is how to deal with banks that still have a high percentage of uninsured deposits — money from customers well in excess of the $250,000 federally insured cap on deposits. The F.D.I.C. on Monday recommended that Congress consider expanding its ability to protect deposits.Many investors and depositors are already assuming that the government will step in to protect all deposits at any failing institution by invoking a systemic risk exception — something they did with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. But that’s easy to do when it is just a few banks that run into trouble and more difficult if many banks have problems.Another looming concern is that midsize banks will pull back on lending to preserve capital if they are subject to the kind of bank runs that took place at Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic. Depositors might also move their savings to money market funds, which tend to offer higher returns than savings or checking accounts.Midsize banks also need to brace for more exacting oversight from the Fed and the F.D.I.C., which criticized themselves in reports released last week about the bank failures in March.Regional and community banks are the main source of financing for the commercial real estate industry, which encompasses office buildings, apartment complexes and shopping centers. An unwillingness by banks to lend to developers could stymie plans for new construction.Any pullback in lending could lead to a slowdown in economic growth or a recession.Some experts said that despite those challenges and concerns about big banks getting bigger, regulators have done an admirable job in restoring stability to the financial system.“It was an extremely difficult situation, and given how difficult it was, I think it was well done,” said Sheila Bair, who was chair of the F.D.I.C. during the 2008 financial crisis. “It means that big banks becoming bigger when smaller banks begin to fail is inevitable,” she added.Reporting was contributed by More

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    A Timeline of How the Banking Crisis Has Unfolded

    by

    First Republic’s downfall was just the latest in a series of problems affecting midsize banks.First Republic Bank was seized by regulators and sold to JPMorgan Chase on Monday, the latest casualty of a banking crisis that has seen other troubled lenders collapse in March.Silicon Valley Bank, one of the most prominent lenders to technology start-ups and venture capital firms, was the first to implode on March 10. Regulators seized Silicon Valley Bank, and later, Signature Bank, a New York financial institution with a large real estate lending business. The panic also led to Wall Street’s biggest banks stepping in to give $30 billion to First Republic and UBS’s takeover of its rival, the Swiss bank Credit Suisse.As investors and bank customers have fretted over the stability of the financial system, federal officials have tried to ease concerns, taking steps to protect depositors and reassuring them they could access all their money.Here is a timeline of events related to the global financial turmoil.March 8In a letter to stakeholders, Silicon Valley Bank said it needed to shore up its finances, announcing a roughly $1.8 billion loss and a plan to raise $2.25 billion in capital to handle increasing withdrawal requests amid a dim economic environment for tech companies.Moody’s, a credit ratings firm, downgraded the bank’s bonds rating.Silvergate, a California-based bank that made loans to cryptocurrency companies, separately announced that it would cease operations and liquidate its assets after suffering heavy losses.March 9Gregory Becker, the chief executive of Silicon Valley Bank, urged venture capital firms to remain calm on a conference call. But panic spread on social media and some investors advised companies to move their money away from the bank.A Silicon Valley Bank executive wrote in a note to clients that it had “been a tough day” but the bank was “actually quite sound, and it’s disappointing to see so many smart investors tweet otherwise.”The bank’s stock plummeted 60 percent and clients pulled out about $40 billion of their money.March 10In the biggest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, Silicon Valley Bank collapsed after a run on deposits. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced that it would take over the 40-year-old institution.Investors began to dump stocks of the bank’s peers, including First Republic, Signature Bank and Western Alliance, which had similar investment portfolios. The nation’s largest banks were more insulated from the fallout, with shares of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo and Citigroup generally flat.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen reassured investors that the banking system was resilient, expressing “full confidence in banking regulators.”Signature Bank, a 24-year-old institution that provided lending services for real estate companies and law firms, saw a torrent of deposits leaving its coffers after customers began panicking.March 12New York regulators shut down Signature Bank, just two days after Silicon Valley Bank failed, over concerns that keeping the bank open could threaten the stability of the financial system. Signature was one of the few banks that had recently opened its doors to cryptocurrency deposits.The Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the F.D.I.C. announced that “depositors will have access to all of their money” and that no losses from either bank’s failure would be “borne by the taxpayer.”The Fed said it would set up an emergency lending program, with approval from the Treasury, to provide additional funding to eligible banks and help ensure they could “meet the needs of all their depositors.”March 13President Biden said in a speech that the U.S. banking system was safe and insisted that taxpayers would not pay for any bailouts in an attempt to ward off a crisis of confidence in the financial system.Regional bank stocks plunged after the unexpected seizure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, with shares of First Republic tumbling 60 percent.The Bank of England announced that banking giant HSBC would buy Silicon Valley Bank’s British subsidiary.March 14Bank stocks recouped some of their losses as investor fears began to ease.The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission reportedly opened investigations into Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse.March 15Credit Suisse shares tumbled after investors started to fear that the bank would run out of money. Officials at Switzerland’s central bank said it would step in and provide support to Credit Suisse if necessary.March 16Eleven of the largest U.S. banks came together to inject $30 billion into First Republic, which was teetering on the brink of collapse. The plan was hatched by Ms. Yellen and Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase. The Treasury secretary believed the actions by the private sector would help underscore confidence in the stability of the banking system. Shares of the bank rallied on the announcement.Credit Suisse said it planned to borrow as much as $54 billion from the Swiss National Bank to stave off concerns about its financial health.Ms. Yellen testified before the Senate Finance Committee and sought to reassure the public that U.S. banks were “sound” and deposits were safe.March 17The shares of many banks continued to slide, wiping out the previous day’s gains as investors continued to worry about the financial turmoil.One day after the $30 billion lifeline was announced, First Republic’s stock plummeted again and it was in talks to sell a piece of itself to other banks or private equity firms.March 19UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, agreed to buy its smaller rival, Credit Suisse, for about $3.2 billion. The Swiss National Bank agreed to lend up to 100 billion Swiss francs to UBS to help close the deal. The Swiss financial regulatory agency also wiped out $17 billion worth of Credit Suisse’s bonds and eliminated the need for UBS shareholders to vote on the deal.The Fed and five other global central banks took steps to ensure that dollars would remain readily available in a move intended to ease pressure on the global financial system.The F.D.I.C. said it had entered into an agreement to sell the 40 former branches of Signature Bank to New York Community Bancorp.March 26First Citizens BancShares agreed to acquire Silicon Valley Bank in a government-backed deal that included the purchase of about $72 billion in loans at a discount of $16.5 billion. It also included the transfer of all the bank’s deposits, which were worth $56 billion. About $90 billion in the bank’s securities and other assets were not included in the sale and remained in the F.D.I.C.’s control.March 30Mr. Biden called on financial regulators to strengthen oversight of midsize banks that faced reduced scrutiny after the Trump administration weakened some regulations. The president proposed requiring banks to protect themselves against potential losses and maintain enough access to cash so they could better endure a crisis, among other things.March 28While testifying before Congress, officials at the Fed, the F.D.I.C. and the Treasury Department faced tough questions from lawmakers about the factors that led to the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.Michael S. Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, blamed bank executives and said the Fed was examining what went wrong, but provided little explanation as to why supervisors did not prevent the collapse.April 14The country’s largest banks — including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo — reported robust first-quarter earnings, signaling that many customers had developed a strong preference for larger institutions they viewed as safer.April 24First Republic’s latest earnings report showed that the bank lost $102 billion in customer deposits during the first quarter — well over half the $176 billion it held at the end of last year — not including the temporary $30 billion lifeline. The bank said it would cut up to a quarter of its work force and reduce executive compensation by an unspecified amount.In a conference call with Wall Street analysts, the bank’s executives said little and declined to take questions.The bank’s stock dropped about 20 percent in extended trading after rising more than 10 percent before the report’s release.April 25First Republic’s stock closed down 50 percent after the troubling earnings report.April 26First Republic’s stock continued its tumble, dropping about 30 percent and closing the day at just $5.69, a decline from about $150 a year earlier.April 28The Fed released a report faulting itself for failing to “take forceful enough action” ahead of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse. The F.D.I.C. released a separate report that criticized Signature Bank’s “poor management” and insufficient risk policing practices.May 1First Republic was taken over by the F.D.I.C. and immediately sold to JPMorgan Chase, making it the second biggest U.S. bank by assets to collapse after Washington Mutual in 2008. More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    What to Watch as the Fed Releases Its Look Into Silicon Valley Bank

    by

    The Federal Reserve is set to release an examination of why its oversight of the bank failed to stem disaster at 11 a.m. on Friday.WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve is set to release a highly anticipated report on Friday examining what went wrong with its oversight of Silicon Valley Bank, which collapsed in mid-March, in the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis.The post-mortem comes as the aftershocks of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse continue to shake the American financial system: First Republic, which required a cash infusion from other large banks as nervous customers pulled their deposits and fled, remains imperiled.The Fed’s investigation into what went wrong at Silicon Valley Bank has been overseen by Michael S. Barr, the central bank’s head of supervision and one of the architects of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which aimed to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crisis. The review was announced on March 13, just after S.V.B.’s failure and the government’s sweeping announcement on March 12 that it would protect the bank’s large depositors, among other measures to shore up the banking system.That same weekend, the federal government also shuttered a second institution, Signature Bank. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which was the primary supervisor for Signature, will release its own report Friday.Still, most of the attention has focused on S.V.B., in part because significant weaknesses at the bank appear to have started and grown progressively worse in plain sight in the years leading up to its demise. The bank had a large share of deposits above the government’s $250,000 insurance limit. That is a potential risk, given that uninsured depositors are more likely to pull their money at the first sign of trouble to prevent losing their savings.The bank’s leaders also made a big bet on interest rates staying low. That became a problem as the Fed, trying to control rapid inflation, carried out its most aggressive rate increase campaign since the 1980s. The bank held longer-term bonds that dropped in value as interest rates rose, because newer debt issued at the higher rates became more attractive for investors.Supervisors at the Fed were aware of many of the bank’s problems and had flagged and tried to follow up on some of them. Yet the issues were not resolved quickly enough to save the bank.The questions that the review could answer center on what went wrong. Was it a problem at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which supervised the bank, or did the fault rest with the Federal Reserve Board, which has ultimate responsibility for bank oversight? It is also unclear whether there was an issue with the Fed’s culture around — and approach to — supervision, or whether the existing rules were lacking.“It’s a little bit of a mystery” what the report will hold, said Steven Kelly, a researcher at the Yale Program on Financial Stability, explaining that he had little expectation that the release would point fingers. “In some sense, they really need a head on a pike — and they’re not going to do that in this report.”Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project, said he was interested to see how the report would deal with the tone around bank supervision at the Fed, and the reality that Gregory Becker, S.V.B.’s chief executive, sat on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. That role gave Mr. Becker no official influence over bank oversight, but Mr. Hauser thinks that such positions might offer banks the advantage of more prestige.Mr. Hauser said he also thinks an independent review is needed in addition to the Fed’s internal probe and whatever its inspector general — who is also looking into the matter — eventually releases. Mr. Barr will still have to work with his colleagues in the future, Mr. Hauser pointed out, and the central bank’s inspector general is appointed by the Fed chair.“We need someone with some independence to dig in,” Mr. Hauser said. More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    First Republic Lurches as It Struggles to Find a Savior

    by

    The bank is sitting on big losses and paying more to borrow money than it is making on its loans to homeowners and businesses.First Republic Bank is sliding dangerously into a financial maelstrom, one from which an exit appears increasingly difficult.Hardly a household name until a few weeks ago, First Republic is now a top concern for investors and bankers on Wall Street and officials in Washington. The likeliest outcome for the bank, people close to the situation said, would need to involve the federal government, alone or in some combination with a private investor.While the bank, with 88 branches focused mostly on the coasts, is still open for business, no one connected to it, including its executives and some board members, would say how much longer it could exist in its current form.First Republic, based in San Francisco, has been widely seen as the most in-danger bank since Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed last month. Like Silicon Valley Bank, it catered to the well-off — a group of customers able to pull their money en masse — and amassed a hoard of loans and assets whose value has suffered in an era of rising interest rates.Yet while SVB and Signature survived just days under pressure, First Republic has neither fallen nor thrived. It has withstood a deposit flight and a cratering stock price. Every attempt by the bank’s executives and advisers to project confidence appears to have had the opposite effect.The bank’s founder and executive chairman, Jim Herbert, until recently one of the more admired figures in the industry, has disappeared from public view. On March 13, Jim Cramer, the CNBC host, said on the air that Mr. Herbert had told him that the bank was doing “business as usual,” and that there were “not any sizable number of people wanting their money.”That was belied by the bank’s earnings report this week, which stated that “First Republic began experiencing unprecedented deposit outflows” on March 10.Neither Mr. Herbert nor the bank’s representatives would comment Wednesday, as First Republic’s stock continued a harrowing slide, dropping about 30 percent to close the day at just $5.69 — down from about $150 a year earlier. On Tuesday, the stock plummeted 49 percent. The company is now worth a little more than $1 billion, or about one-twentieth its valuation before the banking turmoil began in March.In what has become a disquieting pattern, the New York Stock Exchange halted trading in the shares 16 times on Wednesday because volatility thresholds were triggered.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    First Republic Bank’s share price
    Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesStock prices are always an imperfect measure of a lender’s health, and there are strict rules about what types of entities can acquire a bank. Still, First Republic’s stock slide means that its branches and $103 billion in deposits could be bought for, theoretically, an amount less than the market capitalization of Portillo’s, the Chicago-area hot dog purveyor. Of course, any company that buys First Republic would be taking on multibillion-dollar losses on its loan portfolio and assets.The bank is more likely to fall into the hands of the government. That outcome would likely wipe out shareholders and put the bank’s fate in the hands of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.The F.D.I.C. by its own rules guarantees that deposit accounts only up to $250,000 will be made whole, though in practice — and in the case of SVB and Signature — it can make accounts of all sizes whole if several top government officials invoke a special legal provision. Of First Republic’s remaining deposits, roughly half, or nearly $50 billion, were over the insured threshold as of March 31, including the $30 billion deposited by big banks in March.In conversations with industry and government officials, First Republic’s advisers have proposed various restructuring solutions that would involve the government, in one form or another, according to people familiar with the matter. The government could seek to minimize a buyer’s financial risk, the people said, asking not to be identified.Thus far, the Biden administration and Federal Reserve appear to have demurred. Policy experts have said officials would find it more difficult to intervene to save First Republic because of restrictions Congress enacted after the 2008 financial crisis.As a result, six weeks of efforts by First Republic and its advisers to sell all or part of its business have not resulted in a viable plan to save the bank — at least thus far.The state of affairs became plain after the close of trading on Monday, when First Republic announced first-quarter results that showed that it had lost $102 billion in customer deposits since early March. Those withdrawals were slightly ameliorated by the coordinated emergency move of 11 large U.S. banks to temporarily deposit $30 billion into First Republic.To plug the hole, First Republic borrowed $92 billion, mostly from the Fed and government-backed lending groups, essentially replacing its deposits with loans. While the move helped keep the bank going, it essentially undermined its business model, replacing relatively cheap deposits with more expensive loans.The bank is paying more in interest to the government on that new debt than it is earning on its long-term investments, which include mortgage loans to its well-heeled customers on the coasts, funding for real estate projects and the like.One of the biggest parts of the bank’s business was offering large home loans with attractive interest rates to affluent people. And unlike other banks that make a lot of mortgages, First Republic kept many of those loans rather than packaging them into mortgage-backed securities and selling them to investors. At the end of December, the bank had nearly $103 billion in home loans on its books, up from $80 billion a year earlier.But most of those loans were made when the mortgage interest rates were much lower than they are today. That means those loans are worth a lot less, and anybody looking to buy First Republic would be taking on those losses.It is not clear what First Republic can realistically do to make itself or its assets more attractive to a buyer.Among the only tangible changes that the bank has committed to is cutting as much as 25 percent of its staff and slashing executive compensation by an unspecified amount. On its earnings call, First Republic’s executives declined to take questions and spoke for just 12 minutes. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    First Republic Bank Enters New Free Fall as Concerns Mount

    by

    The bank’s shares fell by about 50 percent on Tuesday, a day after it said customers had pulled $100 billion in deposits in the first quarter.First Republic Bank’s stock closed down 50 percent Tuesday, a day after a troubling earnings report and a conference call with analysts in which the company’s executives refused questions. The speed of the decline set off a series of volatility-induced trading halts by the New York Stock Exchange.On Monday, after the close of regular stock trading, First Republic released results that showed just how perilous the bank’s future had become since mid-March following the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. First Republic said its clients pulled $102 billion in deposits in the first quarter — well over half the $176 billion it held at the end of last year.The bank received a temporary $30 billion lifeline last month from the nation’s biggest banks to help shore up its business. Those banks, however, can withdraw their deposits as soon as July. In the first quarter, First Republic also borrowed $92 billion, mostly from the Federal Reserve and government-backed lending groups, essentially replacing its deposits with loans.First Republic is considered the most vulnerable regional bank after the banking crisis in March. What happens to it could also affect investors’ confidence in other regional banks and the financial system more broadly.The bank’s executives did little to establish confidence during its conference call, offering just 12 minutes of prepared remarks. The bank also said on Monday that it would cut as much as a quarter of its work force, and slash executive compensation by an unspecified sum.“This is a trust issue, as it is for any bank, and when trust is lost, money will flee,” Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at New York University, wrote in an email.An analyst at Wolfe Research, Bill Carcache, laid out what he called “the long list of questions we weren’t allowed to ask” in a research note on Tuesday. Among them: How can the bank survive without raising new money, and how can it continue to provide attentive customer service — a staple of its reputation among wealthy clients — while cutting the very staff who provide it?The bank’s options to save itself absent a government seizure or intervention are limited and challenging. No buyer has emerged for the bank in its entirety. Any bank or investor group interested in taking over the bank would have to take on First Republic’s loan portfolio, which could saddle the buyer with billions of dollars in losses based on the recent interest rate moves. The bank is also difficult to sell off in pieces because its customers use many different services like checking accounts, mortgages and wealth management.There are no easy solutions for First Republic’s situation, said Kathryn Judge, a financial regulation expert at Columbia Law School. “If there were attractive options, they would have pursued them already,” Ms. Judge explained.The Fed can no longer take on some of a bank’s financial risk to ease a takeover in the way it did in 2008, because reforms after the financial crisis changed its powers. And while the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation might be able to help in some way, that would most likely involve failing the bank and invoking a “systemic risk exception,” which would require sign-off by officials across several agencies, Ms. Judge said.Yet if the bank does fail, the government will have to decide whether to protect its uninsured depositors, which could also be a tough call, she said.“There’s really no easy answer,” Ms. Judge said.Representatives for the Fed and the F.D.I.C. declined to comment.Shares of other banks also fell on Tuesday, though not nearly as much as First Republic. The KBW Bank Index, a proxy for the industry, closed down about 3.5 percent.Separately, the Fed said on Tuesday that its review of the supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank will be released at 11 a.m. on Friday.Rob Copeland More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    SVB Hearing Takeaways: Bank Failures Spur a Blame Game, But Few Solutions

    by

    Federal regulators faced more than two hours of intense questioning from lawmakers on Tuesday about what caused the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the red flags that went unheeded and the steps that must be taken to avoid future collapses that could rattle the United States financial system.There was bipartisan concern about the state of the nation’s banks that in many cases blurred the usual party lines, where Democrats want more strict oversight and Republicans call for looser regulations. But there was also a substantial amount of buck-passing and finger pointing as the officials from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury Department sought to make sense of the second largest bank failure in American history.The hearing — featuring Michael S. Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, Martin Gruenberg, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Nellie Liang, the Treasury’s under secretary for domestic finance — marked the beginning of what will be an extended inquiry by Congress and the regulators themselves into what went wrong.Regulators blamed the banks.From the outset, the regulators made clear what they believed to be the primary reason that Silicon Valley Bank failed: It was poorly managed and allowed risks to build up to the point that the bank collapsed.Mr. Barr said in his testimony that “SVB’s failure is a textbook case of mismanagement.” He added that Fed officials flagged problems to the bank as far back as November 2021, but the bank failed to deal with them.Punishment for executives is on the table.Lawmakers remained intent on ensuring that the executives of the banks are punished if they did anything improper leading up to the failures. They also expressed particular concern about last minute stock sales by Silicon Valley Bank officials.Regulators said that they were limited in their power to claw back compensation but that they can impose financial and other penalties if their continuing investigation finds wrongdoing.Regulators blamed Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on poor management during more than two hours of questioning, Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe Fed could have done more.The Federal Reserve is under particular scrutiny regarding when it knew that things were amiss at SVB.Even though Fed supervisors had flagged weaknesses at SVB as far back as 2021, Mr. Barr said he first learned of SVB’s problems last month — suggesting it took a long time for concerns to be escalated to the Fed board and its vice chair of supervision.Mr. Barr said that the Federal Reserve officials will be discussing any potential missed warning signs in their internal review and that “we expect to be held accountable.”Regulators say they need more authority.All three regulators said that they believed that financial regulations needed to be tightened following the recent stress in the banking sector.Mr. Barr pointed to Federal Reserve regulations, which were enacted during the Trump administration in 2019, that exempted Silicon Valley Bank from being stress tested and suggested that those need to be revisited.Some Democrats on the committee emphasized the notion that deregulation left agencies without the tools they needed to address issues at smaller banks.What’s next?The House Financial Services Committee will hold its own hearing on Wednesday, and question the same officials.Reviews by the F.D.I.C. and the Fed are expected to be completed by May 1 and members of the Senate committee from both parties suggested they’d be interested in hearing from regulators after those inquiries are concluded.There is also an ongoing debate about raising the bank deposit insurance cap from $250,000 and imposing stiffer penalties on executives at banks that fail.Lawmakers have also asked the Government Accountability Office to study the effectiveness of the bank supervisory regime and make recommendations for changes. But it’s not clear whether any suggested changes would have enough bipartisan support to overcome a divided Congress. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    How Far Can Regulators Go to Protect Uninsured Deposits?

    by

    A decision by federal regulators to ensure that depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank did not lose money regardless of how much they had in their accounts, has aroused populist anger as well as questions of what government agencies can and cannot do to protect uninsured accounts.Under current law, the government insures bank deposits only up to $250,000. Any increase in that limit would require congressional authorization. But regulators can protect deposits over that amount, like they did at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, if they determine that the banks’ failures pose a systemic risk.They can also request approval from Congress to temporarily raise the cap or eliminate it altogether, though some lawmakers have already expressed unwillingness to do so.Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, suggested last week that regulators were ready to make uninsured depositors at other banks whole if necessary and “if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion.”Amid widespread bank failures in the Great Depression, Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933 to insure deposits under $2,500. It has increased that limit over the years, recently lifting it to $250,000 from $100,000 for IRAs in 2006 and for checking accounts in 2008. The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 made the increase permanent.In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the F.D.I.C. evoked the systemic risk exception to create a program that guaranteed new debt issued by banks for three years and insured all deposits if they did not bear interest (typically, accounts used by businesses for payroll).The decision to grant the exception was reached “after three days of intense negotiation,” according to an account of the episode by the F.D.I.C.’s historian, and had to be approved by the Treasury secretary in consultation with the president and two-thirds of the boards of both the F.D.I.C. and the Federal Reserve.But regulators no longer have the ability to create such a program unilaterally, as the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the F.D.I.C.’s authority to temporarily insure accounts with more assets than the statutory limit. Under that law, the agency can only do so if it is the receiver of a failed bank or if it has approval from Congress.“Congress was so concerned with moral hazard and ‘bailouts’ that it seemed to limit the receipt of F.D.I.C. assistance to the imposition of an F.D.I.C. receivership, unless Congress specifically approved a subsequent F.D.I.C. alternative,” said Jeffrey N. Gordon, a law professor at Columbia University and expert on financial regulation.During the coronavirus pandemic, Congress in 2020 temporarily lifted the deposit limit on noninterest bearing accounts. But in congressional testimony last week, Ms. Yellen said her agency was not seeking to lift the cap altogether and insure all deposits over $250,000. Rather, she said, regulators would seek the systemic risk exception for failed banks through a “case-by-case determination.”Others, though, have pushed for more sweeping coverage. Some lawmakers are considering temporarily increasing the deposit cap while others have proposed eliminating it altogether.The Dodd-Frank Act provides a fast-track process for such requests, allowing the Congress to expedite approval by adopting a joint resolution. Sheila Blair, the former president of the F.D.I.C. during the financial crisis, recently urged Congress to initiate the procedure.“We want people to make payroll. We want people to be able to pay their businesses and others to pay their bills. So I think that is one area where unlimited coverage, at least on a temporary basis, makes a lot of sense,” she said in a Washington Post event last week.News reports have also suggested that regulators are looking at other mechanisms of acting without Congress, specifically by tapping into the Exchange Stabilization Fund. The Treasury secretary has broad authority to use the emergency reserve, which was created in 1934 to stabilize the value of the dollar but has been used over the years for a host of other purposes.Mr. Gordon noted that using the exchange fund alone would not work to protect uninsured deposits, given that it is “paltry compared to the Deposit Insurance Fund and unlike the D.I.F. has no mechanism for replenishment.” But he said it would be possible to use the fund as a backstop in a program operated by the Federal Reserve that lends against bank assets.“What this means is that banks would have an easy way to raise cash to pay off all deposits,” he said. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Vice Chair Calls Silicon Valley Bank a ‘Textbook Case of Mismanagement’

    by

    The Federal Reserve’s top bank cop blamed Silicon Valley Bank’s leaders, while previewing the cental bank’s review of its faulty oversight.WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision blamed Silicon Valley Bank’s demise on poor internal management and excessive risk-taking and detailed the steps that Fed supervisors took to address the snowballing problems that ultimately killed the company, according to prepared remarks ahead of a congressional hearing on Tuesday.The vice chair, Michael Barr, who will appear at a Senate Banking Committee hearing along with other regulators, also acknowledged in his written testimony that bank supervision and regulation might need to change in the wake of the collapse.Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse this month sent shock-waves across the global banking system, prompting many depositors to pull their cash out of regional and smaller banks over concerns they could lose their money. The tumult prompted a sweeping response from the government, which pledged to make sure that even big and uninsured depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and another failed bank — Signature — were paid back. The Fed itself set up an emergency lending program to help banks who needed to raise cash in a pinch.But as the upheaval shows tentative signs of calming, lawmakers are demanding to know what went wrong.Mr. Barr will testify alongside Martin Gruenberg, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Nellie Liang, the Treasury’s under secretary for domestic finance.Mr. Gruenberg suggested in his prepared remarks, which were also released on Monday afternoon, that the F.D.I.C. would review both its oversight of Signature bank and the suitability of America’s deposit insurance system — including coverage levels, which now cap at $250,000 — in the wake of the debacle. The F.D.I.C. will release the results of its review by May 1.Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse sent shock-waves across the global banking system, prompting many depositors to pull their cash out of regional and smaller banks.Ian C. Bates for The New York TimesThe Fed was Silicon Valley Bank’s primary regulator, and it too was reviewing why it had failed to stop risks that were in plain sight. Silicon Valley Bank had grown rapidly. Its depositors were heavily concentrated in the volatile technology industry. Many of them had more than $250,000 in their accounts, meaning that their deposits were past the federal insurance limit and that they were more prone to run at the first sign of trouble. The bank’s leaders had made a bad bet that interest rates would stabilize or fall, and the bank faced big losses when rates instead rose in 2022.Mr. Barr was expected to face questions about why those glaring issues had not been stopped — and he laid out an early defense in his speech text.“SVB’s failure is a textbook case of mismanagement,” he said, while adding that the “failure demands a thorough review of what happened, including the Federal Reserve’s oversight of the bank.”He noted that Fed supervisors spotted a range of problems in late 2021 and throughout 2022, even rating the bank’s management as deficient, which barred it from growing by acquiring other companies. And he said that supervisors told board officials in mid-February that they were actively engaged with SVB on its interest rate risk.“As it turned out, the full extent of the bank’s vulnerability was not apparent until the unexpected bank run on March 9,” Mr. Barr added. “In our review, we are focusing on whether the Federal Reserve’s supervision was appropriate for the rapid growth and vulnerabilities of the bank.”Yet Mr. Barr was also likely to face questions — especially from Democrats — about whether changes to Fed regulation and supervision in recent years could have paved the way for the implosion. Congress passed a law that made midsize bank oversight less onerous in 2018, and Mr. Barr’s predecessor, Randal K. Quarles, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump, had carried out and in some cases built upon those changes in 2019.Mr. Barr, a Biden appointee, started in his role in mid-2022. He has been carrying out what the Fed calls a “holistic review” of bank capital standards, but that has yet to be completed.And questions could arise about issues that Mr. Barr did not address in his remarks. For instance, while he pointed out that supervisors were aware of risks at Silicon Valley Bank, he did not note that the group of Fed Board staff members and supervisors overseeing the bank gave it a satisfactory rating when it came to liquidity in 2022 — even after a range of problems, including some with liquidity risk management, had already been flagged.Mr. Barr did suggest that the Fed’s internal review, which he is leading and is set to conclude by May 1, was assessing whether supervisors could “distinguish risks that pose a material threat to a bank’s safety and soundness” and whether “supervisors have the tools to mitigate threats.”But that may be too little to satisfy lawmakers, many of whom are calling for an independent review of what went wrong. Several had sent letters to the Fed requesting a thorough release of materials related to how Silicon Valley Bank was overseen.Ms. Liang said in prepared remarks that the Biden administration was closely monitoring the banking sector and the broader financial system for signs of weakness and defended the handling of the bank failures.“These actions have helped to stabilize deposits throughout the country and provided depositors with confidence that their funds are safe,” she said.Echoing remarks made by Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen last week, Ms. Liang indicated that the Biden administration was prepared to take additional actions.“They are tools we would use again if warranted to ensure that Americans’ deposits are safe,” she said.Mr. Gruenberg suggested that the widespread problems caused by the failure of two banks that were not considered systemic under existing regulatory rules indicated that regulators needed to pay more attention to banks of their size.“Given the financial stability risks caused by the two failed banks, the methods for planning and carrying out a resolution of banks with assets of $100 billion or more also merit special attention,” he said.He said the F.D.I.C. had already begun investigating how senior leaders at both banks contributed to losses through bad management, adding, in what seemed like a roundabout reference to President Biden’s call for new legislation on clawbacks from failed bank executives’ stock sales, that the regulator had the power to hold individual executives accountable.Mr. Gruenberg also seemed to nod to community bank lobbyists’ recent protesting of having to pay for making uninsured depositors at Signature and Silicon Valley Bank whole by participating in a special assessment by the F.D.I.C. to replenish the deposit insurance fund.“The law provides the F.D.I.C. authority, in implementing the assessment, to consider ‘the types of entities that benefit from any action taken or assistance provided,’” Mr. Gruenberg said. More