Federal Deposit Insurance Corp

More stories

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Powell and Yellen Suggest Need to Review Regulations After Bank Failures

    by

    Proposals for more scrutiny of the financial sector are meeting resistance from industry and Congress.WASHINGTON — Two of the nation’s top economic policymakers on Wednesday said they were focused on determining how the failure of Silicon Valley Bank had happened and suggested changes to federal regulation and oversight might be needed to prevent future runs on American banks.The discussion of stricter oversight by Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, and Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen came as lawmakers, the financial industry and investors are working to figure out why Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failed and as policymakers try to ensure other firms don’t suffer the same fate.At a news conference following the Fed’s announcement that it would raise interest rates by a quarter percentage point, Mr. Powell said he was focused on the question of what had gone wrong at Silicon Valley Bank, which was overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.The Fed has initiated an internal review into the supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank, with the central bank’s vice chair for supervision, Michael S. Barr, leading the probe. Asked at the news conference whether he would support an independent examination — one not conducted by the Fed — Mr. Powell said he would welcome more scrutiny.“There’s 100 percent certainty that there will be outside investigations,” he said.Mr. Powell criticized bank executives, who he said had “failed badly,” but also conceded that Fed supervisors had not been effective at preventing the bank from sliding into insolvency. He said he expected the central bank’s own report to outline concrete steps to avoid a repeat of the crisis.“Clearly we do need to strengthen supervision and regulation,” Mr. Powell said. “And I assume that there’ll be recommendations coming out of the report, and I plan on supporting them and supporting their implementation.”Ms. Yellen echoed his comments at a Senate hearing on Wednesday afternoon, saying policymakers needed to take a hard look at the troubles plaguing the banking industry, including what led to the downfalls of Silicon Valley Bank, on March 10, and Signature Bank, which was seized by regulators on March 12.“I absolutely think that it’s appropriate to conduct a very thorough review of what factors were responsible for the failure of these banks,” she said. “Certainly we should be reconsidering what we need to shore up regulation to prevent this.”Ms. Yellen said she supports legislation that would penalize executives whose actions lead to bank failures and restore rules that were rolled back during the Trump administration that gave the Financial Stability Oversight Council more power to scrutinize nonbank financial institutions.Economic policymakers are trying to figure out why Silicon Valley Bank failed and to ensure other firms don’t suffer the same fate.Ulysses Ortega for The New York TimesMs. Yellen also said that because bank runs “may more readily happen now,” it might make sense to update stress test models and bank liquidity requirements with new assumptions about how quickly deposits could flee. Mr. Powell also addressed the speed of the outflows of funds from Silicon Valley Bank, which was hastened by social media and the ease of moving money with smartphones, suggesting that new rules are needed to keep up with advances in technology.For the time being, Ms. Yellen said she was focused on using existing tools to restore confidence in the banking system.The Biden administration likely has little choice because of mounting resistance to new financial regulations within Congress and the banking industry. That opposition was clear on Wednesday as lawmakers and executives gathered at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington.Although there was widespread support for uncovering the roots of the current turmoil, influential lawmakers expressed a desire for caution in considering new curbs on the financial sector.“I think it’s too early to know whether or not new legislation will be necessary,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services committee.Mr. McHenry warned that proposed increases to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation deposit insurance limit could lead to unintended consequences and “moral hazard,” and said that “firms need to be able to fail.”“If you have a hammer, the world looks like a nail,” Mr. McHenry said of the desire to impose more onerous regulations on banks.The banking industry, which has welcomed the government’s support of the sector this month, also urged lawmakers not to respond with more scrutiny.“We should not rush to make changes when we still do not fully know what happened and why,” Rob Nichols, chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said on Wednesday.But Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank this month had shaken the nation’s trust in the banking system. He vowed to hold the executives of those banks accountable and press regulators to review what went wrong.Mr. Brown also called for legislation to “strengthen guardrails” and urged the bank lobbyists not to stand in the way.Representative Patrick T. McHenry warned that proposed increases to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation $250,000 deposit insurance limit could have unintended consequences.Sarah Silbiger for The New York TimesPresident Biden has decried rollbacks in financial regulation passed by Republicans and Democrats under his predecessor, President Donald J. Trump. But he has thus far offered only a small set of concrete proposals for new legislation or executive action to stabilize the financial system in its current turmoil.Last week, Mr. Biden called for Congress to strengthen regulators’ ability to penalize executives of failed banks. His proposals would allow regulators to claw back compensation that executives of medium-sized banks received before their institutions went under, broadening a penalty that currently applies only to executives of large banks. They also would lower the legal threshold that regulators need to clear in order to ban those executives from working in other parts of the financial system.Administration officials are privately debating what else, if anything, Mr. Biden might ask Congress to do — or announce his administration will do unilaterally — to shore up the banking system.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, repeatedly dodged questions from reporters this week about any new proposals Mr. Biden was considering. “We don’t want to let Congress off the hook,” she said on Tuesday. “We want Congress to continue to — to certainly — to take action. And so, we’re going to call on them to do just that.”Mr. Biden has given just one speech on bank regulation since his administration joined the Fed in announcing a rescue plan for Silicon Valley Bank depositors earlier this month. He last addressed the issue on March 17, in a brief exchange with reporters before boarding Marine One at the White House.In that exchange, Mr. Biden was asked: “Are you confident the bank crisis has calmed down?”He replied: “Yes.”Lawmakers pressed Ms. Yellen on whether the administration supported proposals that some members of Congress have offered to make bank customers, whose deposits are only federally guaranteed up to $250,000, feel more confident that their money is safe.Ms. Yellen demurred when asked about proposals to raise the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s cap on deposit insurance. Referring to recent moves to protect bank depositors, Ms. Yellen said during a speech at the A.B.A. gathering on Tuesday that “similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion.”The Biden administration appears to have limited legal authority to unilaterally lift the deposit insurance cap, but financial sector analysts have speculated that the Treasury Department is studying whether it could utilize its Exchange Stabilization Fund, a pot of more than $200 billion of emergency money, to back bank deposits.“All she needs is approval from the president to tap into that basket,” Henrietta Treyz, director of economic policy research at Veda Partners, said of Ms. Yellen. “There are no other alternatives; there’s no chance of a bill passing Congress.”Ms. Yellen said on Wednesday that she was not considering such a move but rather would make case-by-case determinations of whether any banks facing runs pose a “systemic risk” to the economy.“I have not considered or discussed anything to do with blanket insurance or guarantees of all deposits,” Ms. Yellen said, adding that any changes to the deposit insurance limit would require legislation from Congress.Invoking the systemic-risk exception again would require approval from both the Fed and the F.D.I.C. At least one policymaker at the F.D.I.C. is skeptical that the exception should be applied to smaller banks, a person familiar with the situation said, which suggests that achieving consensus on such a move may not be a foregone conclusion.Uncertainty over any government plans to help further backstop banks loom large for the number of regional banks that have seen massive outflows of deposits and are exploring various ways to shore up their balance sheets. Both buyers and sellers are wary of striking a deal without full clarity on concessions the government might offer, two people familiar with the negotiations said.These include First Republic and Pacific Western Bank, which earlier Wednesday said, after tapping billions from an investment firm and the Federal Reserve, it was holding off on raising new capital in part because of depressed shares. Pacific Western has seen deposits fall 20 percent since the start of the year, while First Republic has lost nearly half.It is also unclear what concessions the F.D.I.C will offer as part of its efforts to sell the former Silicon Valley Bank. At least one bank, North Carolina-based First Citizens, has put forward an offer to buy that business, a person briefed on the matter said. The agency is now in the process of soliciting offers for various parts of SVB’s business including Silicon Valley Private Bank, an asset management firm, to discern whether it is more lucrative to sell the bank in pieces or as a whole.“We’ll need to wait and see what the bids are and what the least cost is to the deposit insurance fund,” said Julianne Breitbeil, a spokeswoman for the F.D.I.C, regarding any potential concessions the government plans to offer.The agency expects to issue an update on the sale process this weekend, Ms. Breitbeil said. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Push to Insure Big Deposits Percolates on Capitol Hill

    by

    The government insures only deposits of less than $250,000, but there is precedent for lifting that cap amid turmoil. It could happen again.WASHINGTON — Lawmakers are looking for ways to resolve a major concern that threatens to keep the banking industry in turmoil: The federal government insures bank deposits only up to $250,000.Some members of Congress are looking for ways to boost that cap, at least temporarily, in order to stop depositors from pulling their money out of smaller institutions that have been at center of recent bank runs.Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, and other lawmakers are in talks about introducing bipartisan legislation as early as this week that would temporarily increase the deposit cap on transaction accounts, which are used for activities like payroll, with an eye on smaller banks. Such a move would potentially reprise a playbook used during the 2008 financial crisis and authorized at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 to prevent depositors from pulling their money out.Others, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, have suggested lifting the deposit cap altogether.Any broad expansion to deposit insurance could require action from Congress because of legal changes made after the 2008 financial crisis, unless government agencies can find a workaround. The White House has not taken a public position, instead emphasizing the tools it has already rolled out to address banking troubles.Many lawmakers have yet to solidify their positions, and some have openly opposed lifting the cap, so it is not clear that legislation adjusting it even temporarily would pass. While such a move could calm nervous depositors, it could have drawbacks, including removing a big disincentive for banks to take on too much risk.Still, Senate staff members from both parties have been in early conversations about whether it would make sense to resurrect some version of the previous guarantees for uninsured deposits, according to a person familiar with the talks.Even after two weeks of aggressive government action to shore up the banking system, jitters remain about its safety after high-profile bank failures. Some worry that depositors whose accounts exceed the $250,000 limit may pull their money from smaller banks that seem more likely to crash without a government rescue. That could drive people toward bigger banks that are perceived as more likely to have a government guarantee — spurring more industry concentration.“I’m concerned about the danger to regional banking and community banking in this country,” Mr. Khanna said in an interview. He noted that if regional banks lose deposits as people turn to giant banking institutions that are deemed too big to fail, it could make it harder to get loans and other financing in the middle of the country, where community and regional banks play a major role.“This should be deeply concerning, that our regional banks are losing deposits, and losing the ability to lend, he said.Representative Ro Khanna said broad temporary expansions to deposit insurance would likely require action from Congress.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesIf passed, a temporary guarantee on transaction deposits over the $250,000 federal insurance cap would be the latest step in a sweeping government response to an unfolding banking disaster.Silicon Valley Bank’s failure on March 10 has rattled the banking system. The bank was ill prepared to contend with the Federal Reserve’s interest rate increases: It held a lot of long-term bonds that had declined in value as well as an outsize share of uninsured deposits, which tend to be withdrawn at the first sign of trouble.Still, its demise focused attention on other weak spots in finance. Signature Bank has also failed, and First Republic Bank has been imperiled by outflows of deposits and a plunging stock price. In Europe, the Swiss government had to engineer the takeover of Credit Suisse by its competitor UBS.The U.S. government has responded to the turmoil with a volley of action. On March 12 it announced that it would guarantee the big depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature. The Federal Reserve announced that it would set up an emergency lending program to make sure that banks had a workaround to avoid recognizing big losses if they — as Silicon Valley Bank did — needed to raise cash to cover withdrawals.And on Sunday, the Fed announced that it was making its regular operations to keep dollar financing flowing around the world more frequent, to try to prevent problems from extending to financial markets.For now, the administration has stressed that it will use the tools it is already deploying to protect depositors and ensure a healthy regional and community banking system.“We will use the tools we have to support community banks,” Michael Kikukawa, a White House spokesman, said Monday. “Since our administration and the regulators took decisive action last weekend, we have seen deposits stabilize at regional banks throughout the country, and, in some cases, outflows have modestly reversed.”The midsize Bank Coalition of America has urged federal regulators to extend Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation protection to all deposits for the next two years, saying in a letter late last week that it would halt an “exodus” of deposits from smaller banks.“It would be prudent to take further action,” Mr. Khanna said.Yet not even all banking groups agree that such a step is necessary, especially given that a higher insurance cap might incite more regulation or lead to higher fees.The midsize Bank Coalition of America has urged federal regulators to extend F.D.I.C. insurance to all deposits for the next two years.Al Drago for The New York TimesLifting the deposit cap temporarily could send a signal that the problem is worse than it is, said Anne Balcer, senior executive vice president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group for small U.S. banks. She said many of its member banks were seeing an increase in deposits.“Right now, we’re in a phase of let’s exercise restraint,” she said.There is precedent for temporarily expanding deposit insurance. In March 2020, Congress’s first major coronavirus relief package authorized the F.D.I.C. to temporarily lift the insurance cap on deposits.And in 2008, as panic coursed across Wall Street at the outset of the global financial crisis, the F.D.I.C. created a program that allowed for unlimited deposit insurance for transaction accounts that chose to join the program in exchange for an added fee.Peter Conti-Brown, a financial historian and a legal scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, said the 2010 Dodd-Frank law ended the option for the agencies to temporarily insure larger transaction accounts the way they did in 2008.Now, he said, the regulators would either need congressional approval, or lawmakers would have to pass legislation to enable such a broad-based backstop for deposits. While regulators were able to step in and promise to protect depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, that is because the collapse at those banks was deemed to have the potential to cause broad problems across the financial system.For smaller banks, where failures would be much less likely to have systemwide implications, that means that uninsured depositors might not receive the same kind of protection in a pinch.In a nod to those worries, Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, suggested on Tuesday that even smaller banks could warrant a “systemic” classification in some cases, allowing the agencies to backstop their deposits.“The steps we took were not focused on aiding specific banks or classes of banks,” Ms. Yellen said in a speech. “And similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion.”But the chances that such an approach — or another workaround that allows the government to take the action without passing legislation, such as tapping a pot of money at the Treasury called the Exchange Stabilization Fund — would be effective are not yet clear.Sheila Bair, who was chair of the F.D.I.C. from 2006 to 2011, said she thought that the Biden administration should propose legislation that would let the F.D.I.C. reconstitute a bigger deposit insurance program and use a “fast-track” legislative process to put it in place.While Dodd-Frank curbed the ability of the F.D.I.C. to restart the transaction account guarantee program on its own, it did provide for a streamlined process for future lawmakers to get it up and running again, she said.“I hope the president asks for it; I think it would settle things down pretty quickly,” Ms. Bair said in an interview. But some warned that enacting broad-based deposit insurance could set a dangerous precedent: signaling to bank managers that they can take risks unchecked, and leading to calls for more regulation to protect taxpayers from potential costs.Aaron Klein, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said he would oppose even a revamp of the 2008 deposit insurance because he thought it would be temporary in name only: It would reassert to big depositors that the government will come to the rescue.“If we think the market is going to believe that these things are temporary when they are constantly done in times of crisis,” he said, “then we’re deluding ourselves.”Alan Rappeport More

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Low Rates Were Meant to Last. Without Them, Finance Is In for a Rough Ride.

    by

    Economists expected inflation and rates to stay low for years. With Silicon Valley Bank’s implosion, Wall Street is starting to reckon with how wrong that prediction has proved.WASHINGTON — If a number defined the 2010s, it was 2 percent. Inflation, annual economic growth, and interest rates at their highest all hovered around that level — so persistently that economists, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street began to bet that the era of low-everything would last.That bet has gone bad. And with the implosion of Silicon Valley Bank, America is beginning to reckon with the consequences.Inflation surprised economists and policymakers by spiking after the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, and at 6 percent in February, it is proving difficult to stamp out. The Fed has lifted interest rates by 4.5 percentage points in just the past 12 months as it tries to slow the economy and wrestle price increases under control. The central bank’s decision next Wednesday could nudge rates even higher. And that jump in borrowing costs is catching some businesses, investors and households by surprise.Silicon Valley Bank is the most extreme example of an institution’s being caught off guard so far. The bank had amassed a big portfolio of long-term bonds, which pay more interest than shorter-term ones. But it wasn’t paying to sufficiently protect its assets against the possibility of an interest rate spike — and when rates jumped, it found the market value of its holdings seriously dented. The reason: Why would investors want those old bonds when they could buy new ones at more attractive rates?Those impending financial losses helped to spook investors, fueling a bank run that collapsed the institution and shot tremors across the American banking system.The bank’s mistake was a bad — and ultimately lethal — one. But it wasn’t wholly unique.Many banks are holding big portfolios of long-term bonds that are worth a lot less than their original value. U.S. banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses from securities that had dropped in price at the end of 2022, based on Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data, with many regional banks facing big hits.Adding in other potential losses, including on mortgages that were extended when rates were low, economists at New York University have estimated that the total may be more like $1.75 trillion. Banks can offset that with higher earnings on deposits — but that doesn’t work if depositors pull their money out, as in Silicon Valley Bank’s case.“How worried should we be comes down to: How likely is it that the deposit franchise leaves?” said Alexi Savov, who wrote the analysis with his colleague Philipp Schnabl.Regulators are conscious of that potentially broad interest rate risk. The Fed unveiled an emergency loan program on Sunday night that will offer banks cash in exchange for their bonds, treating them as though they were still worth their original value in the process. The setup will allow banks to temporarily escape the squeeze they are feeling as interest rates rise.But even if the Fed succeeds at neutralizing the threat of bank runs tied to rising rates, it is likely that other vulnerabilities grew during decades of relatively low interest rates. That could trigger more problems at a time when borrowing costs are substantially higher.Impending financial losses helped to spook investors, fueling a bank run that collapsed Silicon Valley Bank and shot tremors across the U.S. banking system.Jason Henry for The New York Times“There’s an old saying: Whenever the Fed hits the brakes, someone goes through the windshield,” said Michael Feroli, chief economist at J.P. Morgan. “You just never know who it’s going to be.”America has gone through regular bouts of financial pain brought about by rising interest rates. A jump in rates has been blamed for helping to burst the bubble in technology stocks in the early 2000s, and for contributing to the decline in house prices that helped to set off the crash in 2008.Even more closely related to the current moment, a sharp rise in interest rates in the 1970s and 1980s caused acute problems in the savings and loan industry that ended only when the government intervened.There’s a simple logic behind the financial problems that arise from rising interest rates. When borrowing costs are very low, people and businesses need to take on more risk to earn money on their cash — and that typically means that they tie up their money for longer or they throw their cash behind risky ventures.When the Fed raises interest rates to cool the economy and control inflation, though, money moves toward the comparative safety of government bonds and other steady investments. They suddenly pay more, and they seem like a surer bet in a world where the central bank is trying to slow the economy.That helps to explain what is happening in the technology sector in 2023, for example. Investors have pulled back from tech company stocks, which tend to have values that are predicated on expectations for growth. Betting on prospective profits is suddenly less attractive in a higher-rate environment.A more challenging business and financial backdrop has quickly translated into a souring job market in technology. Companies have been making high-profile layoffs, with Meta announcing a fresh round just this week.That is more or less the way Fed rate moves are supposed to work: They diminish growth prospects and make access to financing tougher, curb business expansions, cost jobs and end up slowing demand throughout the economy. Slower demand makes for weaker inflation.But sometimes the pain does not play out in such an orderly and predictable way, as the trouble in the banking system makes clear.“This just teaches you that we really have these blind spots,” said Jeremy Stein, a former Fed governor who is now at Harvard. “You put more pressure on the pipes, and something is going to crack — but you never know where it is going to be.”The Fed was conscious that some banks could face trouble as rates rose meaningfully for the first time in years.“The industry’s lack of recent experience with rising and more volatile interest rates, coupled with material levels of market uncertainty, presents challenges for all banks,” Carl White, the senior vice president of the supervision, credit and learning division at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, wrote in a research note in November. That was true “regardless of size or complexity.”But it has been years since the central bank formally tested for a scenario of rising rates in big banks’ formal stress tests, which examine their expected health in the event of trouble. While smaller regional banks aren’t subject to those tests, the decision not to test for rate risk is evidence of a broader reality: Everyone, policymakers included, spent years assuming that rates would not go back up.When borrowing costs are very low, people and businesses need to take on more risk to earn money on their cash.John Taggart for The New York TimesIn their economic forecasts a year ago, even after months of accelerating inflation, Fed officials projected that interest rates would peak at 2.8 percent before falling back to 2.4 percent in the longer run.That owed to both recent experience and to the economy’s fundamentals: Inequality is high and the population is aging, two forces that mean there are lots of savings sloshing around the economy and looking for a safe place to park. Such forces tend to reduce interest rates.The pandemic’s downswing upended those forecasts, and it is not clear when rates will get back on the lower-for-longer track. While central bankers still anticipate that borrowing costs will hover around 2.5 percent in the long run, for now they have pledged to keep them high for a long time — until inflation is well on its way back down to 2 percent.Yet the fact that unexpectedly high interest rates are putting a squeeze on the financial system could complicate those plans. The Fed will release fresh economic forecasts alongside its rates decision next week, providing a snapshot of how its policymakers view the changing landscape.Central bankers had previously hinted that they might raise interest rates even higher than the roughly 5 percent that they had previously forecast this year as inflation shows staying power and the job market remains strong. Whether they will be able to stick with that plan in a world colored by financial upheaval is unclear. Officials may want to tread lightly at a time of uncertainty and the threat of financial chaos.“There’s sometimes this sense that the world works like engineering,” Skanda Amarnath, executive director of Employ America, said of the way central bankers think about monetary policy. “How the machine actually works is such a complex and fickle thing that you have to be paying attention.”And policymakers are likely to be attuned to other pockets of risk in the financial system as rates climb: Mr. Stein, for instance, had expected rate-related weakness to show up in bond funds and was surprised to see the pain surface in the banking system instead.“Whether it is stabler than we thought, or we just haven’t hit the air pocket yet, I don’t know,” he said.Joe Rennison More

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How Washington Decided to Rescue Silicon Valley Bank

    by

    Officials were initially unsure about the need for the measures they eventually announced to shore up the financial system, but changed their minds quickly.WASHINGTON — On Friday afternoon, the deputy Treasury secretary, Wally Adeyemo, met with Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Company, at Mr. Dimon’s office in New York.The Biden administration and the Federal Reserve were considering what would be the most aggressive emergency intervention in the banking system since the 2008 financial crisis, and the question the two men debated was at the heart of that decision.Could the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, the mega start-up lender that had just collapsed, spread to other banks and create a systemic risk to the financial system?“There’s potential,” Mr. Dimon said, according to people familiar with the conversation.Mr. Adeyemo was one of many administration officials who entered last weekend unsure of whether the federal government needed to explicitly rescue Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors before markets opened on Monday morning.In the White House and the Treasury, some officials initially saw the bank’s swift plunge to insolvency as unlikely to spark an economic crisis — particularly if the government could facilitate a sale of the bank to another financial institution.They quickly changed their minds after signs of nascent bank runs across the country — and direct appeals from small businesses and lawmakers from both parties — convinced them the bank’s problems could imperil the entire financial system, not just rich investors in Silicon Valley.On Friday morning, aides met with President Biden in the Oval Office, where they warned that the panic engulfing Silicon Valley Bank could spread to other financial institutions, according to a White House official. Mr. Biden told them to keep him updated on developments.By Friday afternoon, before financial markets had even closed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had stepped in and shut down the bank.Still, the kind of rescue that the United States ultimately engineered would not materialize publicly until Sunday, after intense deliberations across the government.This account is based on interviews with current and former officials in the White House, Treasury and the Fed; financial services executives; members of Congress; and others. All were involved or close to the discussions that dominated Washington over a frenzied process that began Thursday evening and ended 72 hours later with an extraordinary announcement timed to beat the opening of financial markets in Asia.The episode was a test for the president — who risked criticism from the left and the right by greenlighting what critics called a bailout for banks. It also confronted Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen with the prospect of a banking crisis at a moment when she had become more optimistic that a recession could be avoided. And it was the starkest demonstration to date of the impact that the Fed’s aggressive interest rate increases were having on the economy.Wally Adeyemo, deputy Treasury secretary, was initially unsure whether the government would need to intervene to rescue Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors. Andrew Harnik/Associated PressSilicon Valley Bank failed because it had put a large share of customer deposits into long-dated Treasury bonds and mortgage bonds that promised modest, steady returns when interest rates were low. As inflation jumped and the Fed lifted interest rates from near zero to above 4.5 percent to fight it over the last year, the value of those assets eroded. The bank essentially ran out of money to make good on what it owed to its depositors.By Thursday, concern was growing at the Federal Reserve. The bank had turned to the Fed to borrow money through the central bank’s “discount window” that day, but it soon became clear that was not going to be enough to forestall a collapse.Officials including Jerome H. Powell, chairman of the Fed, and Michael S. Barr, its vice chair for supervision, worked through Thursday night and into Friday morning to try to find a solution to the bank’s unraveling. By Friday, Fed officials feared the bank’s failure could pose sweeping risks to the financial system.Compounding the worry: The prospects of arranging a quick sale to another bank in order to keep depositors whole dimmed through the weekend. A range of firms nibbled around the idea of purchasing it — including some of the largest and most systemically important.One large regional bank, PNC, tiptoed toward making an acceptable offer. But that deal fell through as the bank scrambled to scrub Silicon Valley Bank’s books and failed to get enough assurances from the government that it would be protected from risks, according to a person briefed on the matter.A dramatic government intervention seemed unlikely on Thursday evening, when Peter Orszag, former President Barack Obama’s first budget director and now chief executive of financial advisory at the bank Lazard, hosted a previously scheduled dinner at the bank’s offices in New York City’s Rockefeller Center..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Among those in attendance were Mr. Adeyemo and a pair of influential senators: Michael D. Crapo, Republican of Idaho, and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia. Both were sponsors of a 2018 law that rolled back regulation on smaller banks that critics now say left Silicon Valley Bank vulnerable.Blair Effron, a large Democratic donor who had just been hired by Silicon Valley Bank to advise it on its liquidity crunch, was also there. Earlier that day, the bank had attempted to raise money to stave off collapse with the help of Goldman Sachs — an effort that, by Thursday evening, had clearly failed.The Federal Reserve ultimately opened a lending program to help keep money flowing through the banking system.Al Drago for The New York TimesMr. Effron and Mr. Adeyemo spoke as it became evident that Silicon Valley Bank was running out of options and that a sale — or some bigger intervention — might be necessary. Jeffrey Zients, Mr. Biden’s new chief of staff, and Lael Brainard, the new director of his National Economic Council, were also being pelted by warnings about the bank’s threat to the economy. As Silicon Valley Bank’s depositors raced to withdraw their money on Thursday, sending its stock into free fall, both Ms. Brainard and Mr. Zients began receiving a flurry of calls and texts from worried leaders in the start-up community that the bank heavily served.Ms. Brainard, who had experienced financial crises in other countries while serving in Mr. Obama’s Treasury Department and as a Federal Reserve Board member, had begun to worry about a new crisis emanating from SVB’s failure. She and Mr. Zients raised that possibility with Mr. Biden when they briefed him in the Oval Office on Friday morning.Other officials across the administration were more skeptical, worrying that the lobbying blitz Ms. Brainard and others were receiving was purely a sign of wealthy investors trying to force the government to backstop their losses. And there were concerns that any kind of government action could be seen as bailing out a bank that had mismanaged its risk, potentially encouraging risky behavior by other banks in the future.Ms. Brainard started fielding anxious calls again on Saturday morning and did not stop until late in the evening. She and Mr. Zients briefed Mr. Biden that afternoon — virtually this time, because the president was spending the weekend in his home state of Delaware.Mr. Biden also spoke Saturday with Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who was pushing aggressively for government intervention in fear that a wide range of companies in his state would otherwise not be able to pay employees or other operational costs on Monday morning.Concerns mounted that day as regulators reviewed data that showed deposit outflows increasing at regional banks nationwide — a likely sign of systemic risk. They began pursuing two possible sets of policy actions, ideally a buyer for the bank. Without that option, they would need to seek a “systemic risk exception” to allow the F.D.I.C. to insure all of the bank’s deposits. To calm jittery investors, they surmised that a Fed lending facility would also be needed to buttress regional banks more broadly.“Because of the actions that our regulators have already taken, every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them,” President Biden said on Monday.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMs. Yellen on Saturday convened top officials — Mr. Powell, Mr. Barr and Martin J. Gruenberg, the chairman of the F.D.I.C.’s board of directors — to figure out what to do. The Treasury secretary was fielding back-to-back calls on Zoom from officials and executives and at one point described what she was hearing about the banking sector as hair-raising.F.D.I.C. officials initially conveyed reservations about their authority to back deposits that were not insured, raising concerns among those who were briefed by the F.D.I.C. that a rescue could come too late.By Saturday night, anxiety that the Biden administration was dragging its feet was bubbling over among California lawmakers.At the glitzy Gridiron Club Dinner in Washington, Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cornered Steve Ricchetti, a top White House aide and close adviser to the president, and urged Mr. Biden and his team to be decisive. He warned that many of Mr. Biden’s major achievements would be washed away if the banking system melted down.“I said, Steve, this is a massive issue not just for Silicon Valley, but for regional banks around America,” Mr. Khanna said, adding that Mr. Ricchetti replied: “I get it.”Privately, it was becoming clear to Mr. Biden’s economic team that banking customers were getting spooked. On Saturday evening, officials from the Treasury, the White House and the Fed tentatively agreed to two bold moves they finalized and announced late on Sunday afternoon: The government would ensure that all depositors would be repaid in full, and the Fed would offer a program providing attractive loans to other financial institutions in hopes of avoid a cascading series of bank failures.But administration officials wanted to ensure the rescue had limits. The focus, according to a person familiar with the conversation, was ensuring that businesses around the country would be able to pay their employees on Monday and that no taxpayer money would be used by tapping the F.D.I.C.’s Deposit Insurance Fund.It was a priority that the rescue not be viewed as a bailout, which had become a toxic word in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The depositors would be protected, but the bank’s management and its investors would not.By Sunday morning, regulators were putting the finishing touches on the rescue package and preparing to brief Congress. Ms. Yellen, in consultation with the president, approved the “systemic risk exception” that would protect all of the bank’s deposits. The bipartisan members of the Federal Reserve and the F.D.I.C. voted unanimously to approve the decision.That evening, they announced a plan to make sure all depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and another large failed financial institution, Signature Bank, were repaid in full. The Fed also said it would offer banks loans against their Treasury and many other asset holdings, whose values had eroded.“Because of the actions that our regulators have already taken, every American should feel confident that their deposits will be there if and when they need them,” Mr. Biden said during brief remarks at the White House.By Tuesday afternoon the intervention was showing signs of working. Regional bank stocks, which had fallen on Monday, had partially rebounded. The outflow of deposits from regional banks had slowed. And banks were pledging collateral at the Fed’s new loan program, which would put them in a position to use it if they decided that doing so was necessary.The financial system appeared to have stabilized, at least for the moment. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Don’t Call It a Bailout: Washington Is Haunted by the 2008 Financial Crisis

    by

    The colossal bailouts after the 2008 collapse arguably saved the global economy, but they also provoked a ferocious popular backlash.WASHINGTON — On that summer day in 2010 when he signed new legislation regulating the banks after the worst financial crash in generations, President Barack Obama declared, “There will be no more tax-funded bailouts. Period.” Standing over his right shoulder just inches away and clapping was his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr.Nearly 13 years later, Mr. Biden, now himself a president facing a banking crisis, appeared before television cameras on Monday to make clear that he remembered that moment even as he guaranteed depositors at failing institutions. “This is an important point: No losses will be borne by the taxpayers,” he vowed. “Let me repeat that: No losses will be borne by the taxpayers.”He could not even bring himself to utter the word “bailout.”Washington remains haunted by the specter of government intervention after the banking sector collapse that triggered the Great Recession, leaving leaders of both parties determined to avoid any repeat of that painful period. The colossal bailouts initiated under President George W. Bush and continued under Mr. Obama arguably saved the global economy but also provoked such a ferocious popular backlash that they transformed American politics to this day.The notion that “fat-cat bankers,” as Mr. Obama once called them, should be rescued by the government even as everyday Americans lost their jobs, their homes and their life savings so rankled the public that it gave birth to the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements and undermined the establishment across the political spectrum. In some ways, that popular revolt empowered populists like Donald J. Trump and Bernie Sanders, ultimately helping Mr. Trump to win the presidency.“Today’s populism is firmly rooted in 2008,” said Brendan Buck, a top adviser to two Republican House speakers, John A. Boehner and Paul D. Ryan, who were both eventually targeted by Tea Party rebels within their own party. “The bailouts not only fostered distrust of corporations, but cemented the notion that elites always do well while regular people pay the price. Bailouts were also followed by a large expansion of government, and while it all may have prevented much worse calamity, the recovery was slow.”Mr. Biden, of course, knows all that intimately. He saw it up close, watching the public uprising from his office in the West Wing while counseling Mr. Obama on how to respond. Even the separate economic stimulus package that Mr. Obama assigned Mr. Biden to manage came to be tainted because many Americans confused it with the bank bailouts.And so now, as he endeavors to head off a crisis of confidence after the failure of three financial institutions in recent days, Mr. Biden wants to avoid not just a run on the banks but a run on his credibility.“The term and the idea of bailouts are still highly toxic,” said Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s first White House press secretary. He said Mr. Biden rightly focused on accountability for those responsible and sparing taxpayers the cost. “Those are two important lessons learned from 15 years ago. Emphasizing that the ones being helped are instead innocent bystanders who just had money in the bank is why a backlash on this action is less likely.”But Republicans were quick to pin both the crisis and potential resolution on Mr. Biden, accusing him of fostering economic troubles by stoking inflation with big spending and labeling government efforts to head off escalation of the crisis the Biden bailout.“Politically, if you ask me what’s the impact of bailing out rich techies in California — which is exactly how this will be played — then the answer is Donald Trump’s likelihood of re-election just went up three to four points,” said Mick Mulvaney, who came to Congress as a Tea Party champion and later served as Mr. Trump’s acting White House chief of staff.In repeating that taxpayers will not bear the cost of bailing out depositors at the failed banks, Mr. Biden noted that the cost will be financed by fees paid by other banks into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or F.D.I.C. What he did not mention was that a separate loan program that the Federal Reserve has opened to help keep money flowing through the banking system will be backed by taxpayer money. In a statement on Sunday, the Fed said it “does not anticipate that it will be necessary to draw on these backstop funds.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.The nuances did not matter to Mr. Biden’s critics. “Joe Biden is pretending this isn’t a bailout. It is,” Nikki Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said in a statement. “Now depositors at healthy banks are forced to subsidize Silicon Valley Bank’s mismanagement. When the Deposit Insurance Fund runs dry, all bank customers are on the hook. That’s a public bailout.”Other conservatives argued that a government rescue, however it is formulated, warps private markets and eliminates disincentives for financial institutions taking reckless risks because they can assume they too will eventually be saved, a concept called “moral hazard.”“Organizations that can’t manage risk should be allowed to fail, and taxpayers should not be forced to bailout the well-connected and wealthy because a bank prioritized woke causes above smart investing,” David M. McIntosh, a former Republican congressman from Indiana and president of the Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy organization, wrote on Twitter.But the White House adamantly rejected the comparison to the bailouts of the past, noting that the government is protecting depositors, not investors, while firing bank managers responsible for the trouble. “This is very different than what we saw in 2008,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters.Michael Kikukawa, another White House spokesman, later said in a statement: “The president’s direction from the outset has been to respond in a way that protects hardworking Americans and small businesses, keeps our banking system strong and resilient, and ensures those responsible are held accountable. That’s exactly what his administration’s actions have done.”Mr. Biden, for his part, blamed Mr. Trump for the current crisis, saying “the last administration rolled back some of these requirements” in the Dodd-Frank law that Mr. Obama signed in 2010. Mr. Trump signed legislation passed by lawmakers in both parties in 2018 freeing thousands of small and medium-sized banks from some of the strict rules in the earlier law.The bailouts back then came in response to a banking crisis that seemed far more dangerous than what is currently evident. Some of the country’s most storied investment houses were collapsing in 2008 under the weight of risky mortgage-based securities, starting with Bear Stearns and later Lehman Brothers.Mr. Bush was warned that a cascade of failures could propel the country into another Great Depression. “If we’re really looking at another Great Depression,” he told aides, “you can be damn sure I’m going to be Roosevelt, not Hoover.”Casting aside his longstanding free-market philosophy, Mr. Bush asked Congress to authorize $700 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, to prop up the banks. Aghast at the request just weeks before an election, the House rejected the plan, led by Mr. Bush’s fellow Republicans, sending the Dow Jones industrial average down 777 points, the largest single-day point drop in history to that point. Alarmed by the reaction, the House soon reversed course and approved a barely revised version of the plan.Mr. Obama and his running mate, Mr. Biden, both voted for the program and went on to win the election. Taking office in January 2009, they then inherited the bailout. In the end, about $443 billion of the $700 billion authorized was actually used to bolster banks, automakers and a giant insurance firm. As unpopular as it was, the injection of funds helped stabilize the economy.The ultimate cost of the bailouts of that period remains in dispute. Mr. Obama and others who were involved often say that they were all ultimately paid back by the companies that benefited from the funds. ProPublica, the nonprofit investigative news organization, calculated in 2019 that after repayments the federal government actually made a profit of $109 billion.But it depends on how you count the costs. Deborah J. Lucas, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated that same year that the TARP program cost $90 billion in the end, a far cry from the original $700 billion. But other bailouts, most notably to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federally backed home mortgage companies, brought the total cost of various bailouts to $498 billion in her estimation.Either way, critics on the left and right felt aggrieved. As recently as 2020, Mr. Sanders cited the issue in running against Mr. Biden for the Democratic nomination. “Joe bailed out the crooks on Wall Street that nearly destroyed our economy 12 years ago,” he said at a town hall.Mr. Biden stood by the decisions, maintaining they worked. “Had those banks all gone under, all those people Bernie says he cares about would be in deep trouble,” he said during a debate, adding, “This was about saving an economy, and it did save the economy.”The issue was not enough to cost Mr. Biden the nomination, but that did not mean voters remember the bailouts of the past fondly. “To many, it didn’t feel like it ‘worked,’ and that made it very easy to demagogue,” said Mr. Buck. “A long period of economic malaise also leads to people looking for something or someone to blame, which is the basis for populism. I firmly believe we don’t get Trump without the devastation of 2008.” More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Was This a Bailout? Skeptics Descend on Silicon Valley Bank Response.

    by

    The government took drastic action to shore up the banking system and make depositors of two failed banks whole. It quickly drew blowback.WASHINGTON — A sweeping package aimed at containing damage to the financial system in the wake of high-profile failures has prompted questions about whether the federal government is again bailing out Wall Street.And while many economists and analysts agreed that the government’s response should not be considered a “bailout” in key ways — investors in the banks’ stock will lose their money, and the banks have been closed — many said it should lead to scrutiny of how the banking system is regulated and supervised.The reckoning came after the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced Sunday that they would make sure that all depositors in two large failed banks, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, were repaid in full. The Fed also announced that it would offer banks loans against their Treasuries and many other asset holdings, treating the securities as though they were worth their original value — even though higher interest rates have eroded the market price of such bonds.The actions were meant to send a message to America: There is no reason to pull your money out of the banking system, because your deposits are safe and funding is plentiful. The point was to avert a bank run that could tank the financial system and broader economy.It was unclear on Monday whether the plan would succeed. Regional bank stocks tumbled, and nervous investors snapped up safe assets. But even before the verdict was in, lawmakers, policy researchers and academics had begun debating whether the government had made the correct move, whether it would encourage future risk-taking in the financial system and why it was necessary in the first place.“The Fed has basically just written insurance on interest-rate risk for the whole banking system,” said Steven Kelly, senior research associate at Yale’s program on financial stability. And that, he said, could stoke future risk-taking by implying that the Fed will step in if things go awry.“I’ll call it a bailout of the system,” Mr. Kelly said. “It lowers the threshold for the expectation of where emergency steps kick in.”While the definition of “bailout” is ill defined, it is typically applied when an institution or investor is saved by government intervention from the consequences of reckless risk-taking. The term became a swear word in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, after the government engineered a rescue of big banks and other financial firms using taxpayer money, with little to no consequences for the executives who made bad bets that brought the financial system close to the abyss.President Biden, speaking from the White House on Monday, tried to make clear that he did not consider what the government was doing to be a bailout in the traditional sense, given that investors would lose their money and taxpayers would not be on the hook for any losses.“Investors in the banks will not be protected,” Mr. Biden said. “They knowingly took a risk, and when the risk didn’t pay off, investors lose their money. That’s how capitalism works.”The Downfall of Silicon Valley BankOne of the most prominent lenders in the world of technology start-ups collapsed on March 10, forcing the U.S. government to step in.A Rapid Fall: The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the biggest U.S. bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, was caused by a run on the bank. But will the turmoil prove to be fleeting — or turn into a true crisis?The Fallout: The bank’s implosion rattled a start-up industry already on edge, and some of the worst casualties of the collapse were companies developing solutions for the climate crisis.Signature Bank: The New York financial institution closed its doors abruptly after regulators said it could threaten the entire financial system. To some extent, it is a victim of the panic around Silicon Valley Bank.The Fed’s Next Move: The Federal Reserve has been rapidly raising interest rates to fight inflation, but making big moves could be trickier after Silicon Valley Bank’s blowup.He added, “No losses will be borne by the taxpayers. Let me repeat that: No losses will be borne by the taxpayers.”But some Republican lawmakers were unconvinced.Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said on Monday that he was introducing legislation to protect customers and community banks from new “special assessment fees” that the Fed said would be imposed to cover any losses to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Deposit Insurance Fund, which is being used to protect depositors from losses.“What’s basically happened with these ‘special assessments’ to cover SVB is the Biden administration has found a way to make taxpayers pay for a bailout without taking a vote,” Mr. Hawley said in a statement.President Biden said Monday that he would ask Congress and banking regulators to consider rule changes “to make it less likely that this kind of bank failure would happen again.”Doug Mills/The New York TimesMonday’s action by the government was a clear rescue of a range of financial players. Banks that took on interest-rate risk, and potentially their big depositors, were being protected against losses — which some observers said constituted a bailout.“It’s hard to say that isn’t a bailout,” said Dennis Kelleher, a co-founder of Better Markets, a prominent financial reform advocacy group. “Merely because taxpayers aren’t on the hook so far doesn’t mean something isn’t a bailout.”But many academics agreed that the plan was more about preventing a broad and destabilizing bank run than saving any one business or group of depositors.“Big picture, this was the right thing to do,” said Christina Parajon Skinner, an expert on central banking and financial regulation at the University of Pennsylvania. But she added that it could still encourage financial betting by reinforcing the idea that the government would step in to clean up the mess if the financial system faced trouble.“There are questions about moral hazard,” she said.One of the signals the rescue sent was to depositors: If you hold a large bank account, the moves suggested that the government would step in to protect you in a crisis. That might be desirable — several experts on Monday said it might be smart to revise deposit insurance to cover accounts bigger than $250,000.But it could give big depositors less incentive to pull their money out if their banks take big risks, which could in turn give the financial institutions a green light to be less careful.That could merit new safeguards to guard against future danger, said William English, a former director of the monetary affairs division at the Fed who is now at Yale. He thinks that bank runs in 2008 and recent days have illustrated that a system of partial deposit insurance doesn’t really work, he said.An official with the F.D.I.C., center, explained to clients of Silicon Valley Bank in Santa Clara, Calif., the procedure for entering the bank and making transactions.Jim Wilson/The New York Times“Market discipline doesn’t really happen until it’s too late, and then it’s too sharp,” he said. “But if you don’t have that, what is limiting the risk-tanking of banks?”It wasn’t just the side effects of the rescue stoking concern on Monday: Many onlookers suggested that the failure of the banks, and particularly of Silicon Valley Bank, indicated that bank supervisors might not have been monitoring vulnerabilities closely enough. The bank had grown very quickly. It had a lot of clients in one volatile industry — technology — and did not appear to have managed its exposure to rising interest rates carefully.“The Silicon Valley Bank situation is a massive failure of regulation and supervision,” said Simon Johnson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.The Fed responded to that concern on Monday, announcing that it would conduct a review of Silicon Valley Bank’s oversight. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was responsible for supervising the failed bank. The results will be released publicly on May 1, the central bank said.“The events surrounding Silicon Valley Bank demand a thorough, transparent and swift review,” Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said in a statement.Mr. Kelleher said the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission should be looking into potential wrongdoing by Silicon Valley Bank’s executives.“Crises don’t just happen — they’re not like the Immaculate Conception,” Mr. Kelleher said. “People take actions that range from stupid to reckless to illegal to criminal that cause banks to fail and cause financial crises, and they should be held accountable whether they are bank executives, board directors, venture capitalists or anyone else.”One big looming question is whether the federal government will prevent bank executives from getting big compensation packages, often known as “golden parachutes,” which tend to be written into contracts.Treasury and the F.D.I.C. had no comment on whether those payouts would be restricted.Uninsured depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, who had accounts exceeding $250,000, will be paid back.David Dee Delgado/ReutersMany experts said the reality that problems at Silicon Valley Bank could imperil the financial system — and require such a big response — suggested a need for more stringent regulation.While the regional banks that are now struggling are not large enough to face the most intense level of regulatory scrutiny, they were deemed important enough to the financial system to warrant an aggressive government intervention.“At the end of the day, what has been shown is that the explicit guarantee extended to the globally systemic banks is now extended to everyone,” said Renita Marcellin, legislative and advocacy director at Americans for Financial Reform. “We have this implicit guarantee for everyone, but not the rules and regulations that should be paired with these guarantees.”Daniel Tarullo, a former Fed governor who was instrumental in setting up and carrying out financial regulation after the 2008 crisis, said the situation meant that “concerns about moral hazard, and concerns about who the system is protecting, are front and center again.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    SVB Collapse Upsets Expectations for Federal Reserve’s Rate Decision

    by

    Listen to This ArticleThe Federal Reserve’s hotly anticipated March 22 interest rate decision is just a week and a half away, and the drama that swept the banking and financial sector over the weekend is drastically shaking up expectations for what the central bank will deliver.The Fed had been raising interest rates rapidly to try to contain the most painful burst of inflation since the 1980s, lifting them to above 4.5 percent from near zero a year ago. Concern about rapid inflation prompted the central bank to make four consecutive 0.75-point increases last year before slowing to a half point in December and a quarter point in February.Before this weekend, investors believed there was a substantial chance that the Fed would make a half-point increase at its meeting next week. That step up was seen as an option because job growth and consumer spending have proved surprisingly resilient to higher rates — prompting Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, to signal just last week that the Fed would consider a bigger move.But investors and economists no longer see that as a likely possibility.Three notable banks have failed in the past week alone as Fed interest rate increases ricochet through the technology sector and cryptocurrency markets and upend even usually staid bank business models.Regulators unveiled a sweeping intervention on Sunday evening to try to prevent panic from coursing across the broader financial system, with the Treasury, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Fed saying depositors at the failed banks will be paid back in full. The Fed announced an emergency lending program to help funnel cash to banks facing steep losses on their holdings because of the change in interest rates.The Downfall of Silicon Valley BankOne of the most prominent lenders in the world of technology start-ups collapsed on March 10, forcing the U.S. government to step in.A Rapid Fall: The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the biggest U.S. bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, was caused by a run on the bank. But will the turmoil prove to be fleeting — or turn into a true crisis?The Fallout: The bank’s implosion rattled a start-up industry already on edge, and some of the worst casualties of the collapse were companies developing solutions for the climate crisis.Signature Bank: The New York financial institution closed its doors abruptly after regulators said it could threaten the entire financial system. To some extent, it is a victim of the panic around Silicon Valley Bank.The Fed’s Next Move: The Federal Reserve has been rapidly raising interest rates to fight inflation, but making big moves could be trickier after Silicon Valley Bank’s blowup.The tumult — and the risks that it exposed — could make the central bank more cautious as it pushes forward.Investors have abruptly downgraded how many interest rate moves they expect this year. After Mr. Powell’s speech last week opened the door to a large rate change at the next meeting, investors had sharply marked up their 2023 forecasts, even penciling in a tiny chance that rates would rise above 6 percent this year. But after the wild weekend in finance, they see just a small move this month and expect the Fed to cut rates to just above 4.25 percent by the end of the year.Economists at J.P. Morgan said the situation bolstered the case for a smaller, quarter-point move this month.“I don’t hold that view with tons of confidence,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan, explaining that a move this month was conditional on the banking system’s functioning smoothly. “We’ll see if these backstops have been enough to quell concerns. If they are successful, I think the Fed wants to continue on the path to tightening policy.”Goldman Sachs economists no longer expect a rate move at all. While Goldman analysts still think the Fed will raise rates to above 5.25 percent this year, they wrote on Sunday evening that they “see considerable uncertainty” about the path.“I think the Fed is going to want to wait awhile to see how this plays out,” said William English, a former director of the monetary affairs division at the Fed who is now at Yale. He explained that tremors in the banking system could spook lenders, consumers and businesses — slowing the economy and meaning that the Fed had to do less to cool the economy and lower inflation.“If it were me, I’d be inclined to pause,” Mr. English said.Other economists went even further: Nomura, saying it was unclear whether the government’s relief program was enough to stop problems in the banking sector, is now calling for a quarter-point rate cut at the coming meeting.The Fed will receive fresh information on inflation on Tuesday, when the Consumer Price Index is released. That measure is likely to have climbed 6 percent over the year through February, economists in a Bloomberg forecast expected. That would be down slightly from 6.4 percent in a previous reading.But economists expected prices to climb 0.4 percent from January after food and fuel prices, which jump around a lot, are stripped out. That pace would be quick enough to suggest that inflation pressures were still unusually stubborn — which would typically argue for a forceful Fed response.The data could underline why this moment poses a major challenge for the Fed. The central bank is in charge of fostering stable inflation, which is why it has been raising interest rates to slow spending and business expansions, hoping to rein in growth and cool price increases.But it also charged with maintaining financial system stability, and higher interest rates can reveal weaknesses in the financial system — as the blowup of Silicon Valley Bank on Friday and the towering risks for the rest of the banking sector illustrated. That means those goals can come into conflict.Subadra Rajappa, head of U.S. rates strategy at Société Générale, said on Sunday afternoon that she thought the unfolding banking situation would be a caution against moving rates quickly and drastically — and she said instability in banking would make the Fed’s task “trickier,” forcing it to balance the two jobs.“On the one hand, they are going to have to raise rates: That’s the only tool they have at their disposal” to control inflation, she said. On the other, “it’s going to expose the frailty of the system.”Ms. Rajappa likened it to the old saying about the beach at low tide: “You’re going to see, when the tide runs out, who has been swimming naked.”Some saw the Fed’s new lending program — which will allow banks that are suffering in the high-rate environment to temporarily move to the Fed a chunk of the risk they are facing from higher interest rates — as a sort of insurance policy that could allow the central bank to continue raising rates without causing further ruptures.“The Fed has basically just written insurance on interest-rate risk for the whole banking system,” said Steven Kelly, senior research associate at Yale’s program on financial stability. “They’ve basically underwritten the banking system, and that gives them more room to tighten monetary policy.”Joe Rennison More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Silicon Valley Bank’s Collapse Causes Strain for Young Companies

    by

    Young companies raced to get their money out of the bank, which was central to the start-up industry. Some said they could not make payroll.Ashley Tyrner opened an account with Silicon Valley Bank for her company, FarmboxRx, two years ago. She was setting out to raise venture capital and knew the bank was a go-to for the start-up industry.On Thursday, after reading about financial instability at the bank, she rushed to move FarmboxRx’s money into two other bank accounts. Her wire transfers didn’t go through. And on Friday, Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, tying up cash totaling eight figures for her company, which delivers food to Medicare and Medicaid participants.“None of my reps will call me back,” Ms. Tyrner said. “It’s the worst 24 hours of my life.”Her despair was part of the fallout across the start-up ecosystem from the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. Entrepreneurs raced to get loans to make payroll because their money was frozen at the bank. Investors doled out and asked for advice in memos and on emergency conference calls. Lines formed outside the bank’s branches. And many in the tech industry were glued to Twitter, where the collapse of a linchpin financial partner played out in real time.The implosion rattled a start-up industry already on edge. Hurt by rising interest rates and an economic slowdown over the past year, start-up funding — which had been supercharged by low interest rates for years — has shriveled, resulting in mass layoffs at many young companies, cost-cutting and slashed valuations. Investments in U.S. start-ups dropped 31 percent last year to $238 billion, according to PitchBook.On top of that, the fall of Silicon Valley Bank was especially troubling because it was the self-described “financial partner of the innovation economy.” The bank, founded in 1983 and based in Santa Clara, Calif., was deeply entangled in the tech ecosystem, providing banking services to nearly half of all venture-backed technology and life-science companies in the United States, according to its website.Silicon Valley Bank was also a bank to more than 2,500 venture capital firms, including Lightspeed, Bain Capital and Insight Partners. It managed the personal wealth of many tech executives and was a stalwart sponsor of Silicon Valley tech conferences, parties, dinners and media outlets.The bank was a “systemically important financial institution” whose services were “immensely enabling for start-ups,” said Matt Ocko, an investor at the venture capital firm DCVC.On Friday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took control of Silicon Valley Bank’s $175 billion in customer deposits. Deposits of up to $250,000 were insured by the regulator. Beyond that, customers have received no information on when they will regain access to their money.That left many of the bank’s clients in a bind. On Friday, Roku, the TV streaming company, said in a filing that roughly $487 million of its $1.9 billion in cash was tied up with Silicon Valley Bank. The deposits were largely uninsured, Roku said, and it did not know “to what extent” it would be able to recover them.Josh Butler, the chief executive of CompScience, a workplace safety analytics start-up, said he was unable to get his company’s money out of the bank on Thursday or before the bank’s collapse on Friday. The last day, he said, had been nerve-racking.“Everyone from my investors to employees to my own mother are reaching out to ask what’s going on,” Mr. Butler said. “The big question is how soon will we be able to get access to the rest of the funds, how much if at all? That’s absolutely scary.”CompScience was pausing spending on marketing, sales and hiring until it solved more pressing concerns, like making payroll. Mr. Butler said he had been prepared for a big crunch, given the doom and gloom swirling around the industry.But “did I expect it to be Silicon Valley Bank?” he said. “Never.”Camp, a start-up selling gifts and experiences for children, added a banner to its website on Friday that read: “OUR BANK JUST CLOSED — SO EVERYTHING IS ON SALE!”The site offered 40 percent off with the promo code “bankrun” alongside a meme that included the words “i never liked the bay area” and “how could this happen.” A Camp representative said the sale was related to Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse and declined to comment further.Sheel Mohnot, an investor at Better Tomorrow Ventures, said his venture firm advised its start-ups on Thursday to move money into Treasuries and open other bank accounts out of prudence.“Once a bank run has started, it’s hard to stop,” he said.Some of the start-ups that Mr. Mohnot’s firm has invested in chose not to move their money, while others were unable to act in time before the bank failed, he said. Now their biggest concern was making payroll, followed by figuring out how to pay their bills, he said.Haseeb Qureshi, an investor at Dragonfly, a cryptocurrency-focused venture capital firm, said his firm was counseling several of its start-ups that had funds tied up in Silicon Valley Bank.“The first thing you think about is survival,” he said. “It’s a harrowing moment for a lot of people.”Other start-ups were benefiting from the bank’s collapse. On Friday afternoon, Brex, a provider of financial services to start-ups, unveiled an “emergency bridge line of credit” for new customers migrating from Silicon Valley Bank. The service was aimed at helping those start-ups shore up expenses like payroll.For part of Thursday, Brex received billions of dollars in deposits from several thousand companies, a person with knowledge of the situation said. The company rushed to open accounts as fast as possible to meet demand, with its chief executive reviewing applications, the person said.But by Thursday afternoon, the incoming deposits to Brex slowed to a halt, as founders began reporting that Silicon Valley Bank’s online portal had frozen and customers were no longer able to access their money, the person said.A man trying to enter a Silicon Valley Bank branch in Manhattan on Friday. David Dee Delgado/ReutersMany venture capital firms had also used lines of credit with Silicon Valley Bank to make investments quickly and smoothly, Mr. Ocko of DCVC said. Those lines of credit are now frozen, he said.Mr. Ocko added that he did not foresee systemic collapse among start-ups and tech, but predicted “pain and friction and uncertainty and complexity in the middle of what’s already a painful macro environment for start-ups.”To stave off any taint from Silicon Valley Bank, some venture funds blasted updates to their backers. Sydecar, a service that facilitates venture capital deals, shared a list of the banks it uses that were not affected. Origin Ventures promised to help companies “create contingency plans around working capital.”Another venture firm outlined its exposure to Silicon Valley Bank and apologized in a memo, saying, “This is the worst email I’ve ever had to write to you.” The memo was seen by The New York Times.Entrepreneurs also weighed into group chats with the dollar amounts that they could no longer tap at Silicon Valley Bank or what they had managed to pull out, ranging from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions, according to communications viewed by The Times.A trickle of customers walked up to Silicon Valley Bank’s branch in Menlo Park, Calif., on Friday afternoon and discovered that its doors were locked. Some read an F.D.I.C. notice, taped by the entrance, that said the regulator was in control.One person who tried the doors was carrying a Chick-fil-A bag. A woman in the office cracked a door open, asked who the person was and then took the bag with a smile. Then she pulled the door shut.Reporting was contributed by More