Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

More stories

  • 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

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    First Republic Bank Lost $102 Billion in Customer Deposits

    by

    The regional bank received a $30 billion lifeline from big banks last month, but depositors and investors remain worried about its prospects.First Republic Bank, the most imperiled U.S. lender after last month’s banking crisis, on Monday disclosed the grisly details of just how troubled its business has become — and not much else.In the bank’s highly anticipated first update to investors since entering a free-fall over the past month and a half, its leaders said little. In a conference call to discuss its first quarter results with Wall Street analysts, the bank’s executives offered just 12 minutes of prepared remarks and declined to take questions, leaving investors and the public with few answers about how it would escape its crater.“When a bank feels like it has few options remaining, it starts to play by its own rules,” said Timothy Coffey, a bank analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott. “Every day, every week from now until whenever — it’s going to be a fight for them.”One thing is certain: The bank, which caters to a well-heeled clientele on the coasts, seems to be hanging by a thread. During the first quarter, it lost a staggering $102 billion in customer deposits — well over half the $176 billion it held at the end of last year — not including a temporary $30 billion lifeline it received from the nation’s biggest banks last month.Over that same period, it borrowed $92 billion, mostly from the Federal Reserve and government-backed lending groups, essentially replacing its deposits with loans. That’s a perilous course for any bank, which generally do business by taking in relatively inexpensive customer deposits while lending money to home buyers and businesses at much higher interest rates.First Republic is still making some money; it reported a quarterly profit of $269 million, down one-third from a year earlier. It made far fewer loans than it had in earlier quarters, keeping with a general trend in banking, as industry executives worry about a recession and softening home prices and sales.The bank’s stock dropped about 20 percent in extended trading, with the fall worsening after executives declined to take questions from analysts.First Republic’s share price is down more than 85 percent since mid-March.The bank said that its deposit exodus largely ceased by the last week of March. From March 31 to April 21, the bank said that it lost only 1.7 percent of its deposits and that most of those withdrawals were related to tax payments by its clients.The slide began roughly six weeks ago, when the midsize lenders Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were taken over by federal regulators after customers pulled billions of dollars in deposits. First Republic, based in San Francisco, was widely seen as the lender most likely to fall next, because it had many clients in the start-up industry — similar to Silicon Valley Bank — and many of its accounts held more than $250,000, the limit for federal deposit insurance.First Republic has been in talks with financial advisers and government officials to come up with a plan to save itself that could include selling the bank or parts of it, or raising new capital.Much more remains to be done. The bank said on Monday that it would cut as much as a quarter of its work force, and slash executive compensation by an unspecified sum.Until recently, First Republic was a darling of Wall Street. It was founded in 1985 by Jim Herbert, who is still the bank’s executive chairman at 78. The company distinguished itself by offering wealthy clients jumbo mortgages, which can’t be sold to the government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Herbert consistently touted First Republic’s business model as a sound one because its borrowers had good credit records.In 2007, Merrill Lynch paid $1.8 billion to acquire the bank, but its ownership lasted only three years. Mr. Herbert, with the help of other investors, bought the bank back after the 2008 financial crisis and took it public.Since then, First Republic has focused on expanding by setting up branches in the poshest parts of New York, Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles and in places synonymous with wealth like Greenwich, Conn., and Palm Beach, Fla. The bank’s branches endeared themselves to clients and prospective customers with personal touches, like warm, freshly baked cookies.Janna Koretz, a 37-year-old psychologist in Boston, started banking with First Republic roughly a decade ago as she was building a group practice. “It’s not like I had all this money,” she said, but her banker was constantly available. The bank would send couriers to her office to pick up cash from her practice.In mid-December, the bank hosted a holiday party at a performing arts space in Manhattan for hundreds of employees and clients, according to two attendees who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they wanted to preserve their relationships with the bank. A graffiti artist wielding black spray paint, and flamenco dancers entertained the crowd. The bank’s chief executive Mike Roffler, who had been in the top job only since March of 2022, warned the crowd that 2023 could be a challenging year for the bank.Three months later, the bank found itself in the spotlight of a different sort. In the days and weeks after Silicon Valley Bank’s demise, numerous larger banks looked into buying First Republic. But a deal didn’t come together and the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, and the Treasury secretary, Janet L. Yellen, worked together to inject $30 billion in deposits into the bank. The big banks that put in that money can withdraw it in as soon as four months.On the brief conference call on Monday, Mr. Roffler said little about what could happen next and merely reiterated the bank’s public disclosures. “I’d like to take a moment to thank our colleagues for their commitment to First Republic and their uninterrupted service of our clients and communities throughout this challenging period,” he said. “Their dedication is inspiring.” More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Franchisers, Facing Challenges to Business Model, Punch Back

    by

    Discontented franchisees have found allies among state legislators and federal regulators in pushing for new laws and rules, but change has been slow.When you visit a McDonald’s, a Jiffy Lube or a Hilton Garden Inn, you may assume you’re visiting one business. More likely, you’re actually visiting two: the operator of that particular location, known as the franchisee, and the larger company that owns the intellectual property behind it, or the franchiser.Conflict is inherent in that relationship, but it has hit a boil in recent months, as franchisees say they’re being squeezed out of the profits their business generates through new fees, required vendors and constraints on their ability to sell.On Monday, the Government Accountability Office released a report finding that franchisees “do not enjoy the full benefit of the risks they bear,” citing interviews with dozens of small-business owners who said they lacked control over basic operations that determined their ability to earn a profit.They’ve found a sympathetic ear in the Biden administration and in several state legislatures, giving rise to a growing wave of proposals to limit the power of franchisers.Franchisers have been largely successful in heading off new laws and rules, which the chief executive of McDonald’s, Chris Kempczinski, has described as an existential threat.“The reality is that our business model is under attack,” he said in February at the convention of the International Franchise Association, a trade group for franchisers, franchisees and franchise suppliers. “If you’re not paying attention to these pieces of legislation because you think they don’t impact you, think again.”The chief executive of McDonald’s says the franchising industry’s business model is “under attack” because of a push for new laws and rules.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesFranchising has been a feature of American capitalism for decades, allowing brands to grow quickly using investment from entrepreneurs who commit their own capital in exchange for a business plan and a logo that consumers might recognize. The Federal Trade Commission requires franchisers to disclose factors including start-up costs and the company’s financial performance to those considering buying a franchise, and some state laws govern considerations like transfer rights.But much of the relationship is largely unregulated — changes a franchiser can make to contracts, for example, and which vendors can be required.Keith Miller, a Subway franchisee in California who has become an advocate for franchisee rights, said the lack of oversight had given rise to an increasing number of disputes. “There’s more of a squeeze on the franchisees than ever,” he said. Franchisees’ royalty payments used to cover things like marketing, new menus and sales tools, he added, but “now you seem to have to pay for your services.”The franchise industry says that its business model remains beneficial to individual owners, and that additional regulation would protect substandard franchisees at everyone else’s expense. Matthew Haller, chief executive of the International Franchise Association, cited a 2021 survey by the market research firm Franchise Business Review in which 82 percent of franchisees said they supported their corporate leadership.But legislative battles at the state level reflect rising tension.Hotel franchisees, squeezed by lost revenue during pandemic lockdowns, say they have also been hurt by the hotel brands’ loyalty programs, which require the hotelier to rent rooms at a reduced rate. A bill in New Jersey that would limit those loyalty programs, as well as rebates that brands can collect from vendors that franchisees are required to use, faces fierce opposition from the American Hotel and Lodging Association. In a statement, the association’s chief executive, Chip Rogers, said the bill would “completely undermine the foundation of hotel franchising by limiting a brand’s ability to enforce brand standards.”Laura Lee Blake, the chief executive of the 20,000-member Asian American Hotel Owners Association, said hoteliers had reached desperation. “There comes a point when you’ve tried and tried to meet with the franchisers to ask for changes, and they refuse to listen,” she said.In Arizona, legislation introduced to enhance franchisees’ ability to sell their businesses and prevent retaliation from franchisers if they band together in associations has also faced resistance. The bill was approved by two committees in February and March, but the International Franchise Association hired two lobbying firms to fight it. In a Republican caucus meeting, opponents attacked the legislation as a “sledgehammer” that would bring the government into private business relationships. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Anastasia Travers, a freshman Democrat, said she was taken aback by how quickly opposition snowballed, and ultimately gave up on it for the 2023 session.“Time has not been my friend,” Ms. Travers said.A similar bill in Arkansas, which the International Franchise Association initially said would be “the most extreme franchise regulation of any state,” was amended to strip entire sections, including one that would have prevented franchisers from imposing any requirement that “unreasonably changes” the financial terms of the relationship as a condition of renewal or sale.After the bill was slimmed down — leaving provisions such as one restoring the existing statute, which had been rendered ineffective by a subsequent law, and another requiring the franchiser to establish material cause before terminating the franchise — the industry group withdrew its opposition, allowing swift passage.A Subway location in New York. “There’s more of a squeeze on the franchisees than ever,” said Keith Miller, a Subway franchise owner in California.Carlo Allegri/ReutersIn an email to supporters before the votes, the franchise association’s vice president for state and local government relations, Jeff Hanscom, credited the Arkansas agribusiness giant Tyson Foods for being “instrumental in negotiating this outcome.” Tyson Foods did not respond to a request for comment.At the federal level, franchisers may face greater challenges.The Biden administration is moving on two fronts. One is the Federal Trade Commission, which issued a request in March for information about the ways in which franchisers control franchisees. The initiative could result in additional guidance or rules — putting the industry on high alert.The second front is the National Labor Relations Board, which has proposed making it easier for franchisers to be designated as “joint employers” that would be liable for the labor law violations of franchisees if they exerted significant control over working conditions. Franchisers maintain that this would “destroy” the business model, because it would subject them to unacceptable risks.Franchisers attribute the flurry of activity to union influence. The Service Employees International Union, in particular, has long fought to get McDonald’s designated as a joint employer so it would be easier to mount an organizing effort across the chain, rather than store by store.Robert Zarco, a Miami lawyer retained by an association of 1,000 McDonald’s owners, said that to avoid the joint-employer designation, and the extra liability it would bring, franchisers could choose to weaken their grip on franchisee operations.“If the company wants to not be considered a joint employer, it’s very simple to fix,” he said. “Unwind all those excessive controls that they have implemented that are outside of protecting the brand and the product and service quality.”The franchise association’s federal lobbying spending hit a high of $1.24 million in 2022, alongside millions more spent in recent years on federal elections, and doesn’t include money spent by the individual franchise brands.The high stakes are evident in other ways, as well.The Franchise Times, a 30-year-old independent trade publication with six editorial employees, writes about day-to-day events in the industry: acquisitions, executive leadership changes, technology trends. When strife arises, such as lawsuits and bankruptcies, it writes about those, too.The publication’s legal columnist, Beth Ewen, wrote several stories this year about Unleashed Brands, a portfolio of franchises that has drawn lawsuits from franchisees. In response, the company published a markup of one of Ms. Ewen’s stories in red pen font with “DEBUNKED” stamped across the top. (The organization had given similar treatment to an article about the company by The New York Times. Both publications stand by their reporting, and Unleashed did not ask for corrections.)In March, a new website popped up at the address “NoFranchiseTimes.com.” Its front page was devoted to an attack on what it called “editorial bias,” “denigrating the businesses that support their publication.”It called for the publication’s advertisers — which include law firms, vendors and brands — to cancel their purchases.Michael Browning Jr., the chief executive of Unleashed Brands and a member of the International Franchise Association’s board, emailed the trade group’s membership saying that while he had not created the website, he supported its message and thought the group should revoke The Franchise Times’s membership. Mr. Browning did not respond to a request for further comment.The association declined to revoke the membership, and the publication says its advertising revenue is up from last year. But to Ms. Ewen, a 35-year veteran of business reporting, the episode shows that the industry is trying to divert attention from real problems — and that some members are playing hardball.“They’re trying to hit at our business model and our ability to keep going,” she said. “There’s a lot of people spending a lot of time trying to get us and others to stop doing these stories.” More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Julie Su Faces Senate Fight as Labor Dept. Nominee

    by

    Business groups are critical of the candidate, Julie Su, and key senators are wavering. The administration’s labor policies are central to the clash.Just over a year ago, the White House suffered an embarrassing defeat when three Democratic senators voted against advancing President Biden’s pick to run a key labor agency, dealing a blow to the administration’s pro-labor agenda.On Thursday, the administration and Senate Democrats tried to ensure that history wouldn’t repeat itself, only this time the stakes were even higher.The occasion was the Senate confirmation hearing of Julie Su, who has served as acting labor secretary since March 11 and is Mr. Biden’s choice to fill the job permanently.As with last year’s confirmation battle, over the government’s top enforcer of minimum wage and overtime laws, Ms. Su’s nomination represents a broader fight over workplace regulation, with business groups chafing against Mr. Biden’s push to strengthen unions and increase workers’ rights and benefits.And once again, there are signs that the administration may fall short, with at least two Democrats and an independent wavering over whether to support Ms. Su. A vote of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is scheduled for next week.In her testimony before the committee on Thursday, Ms. Su largely associated herself with the record of her predecessor, Martin J. Walsh — whom some Republicans and business groups have held up as pragmatic, and whom Ms. Su served as deputy.She said she would seek employers’ advice on improving worker safety, and described the reverence she gained for small business owners after watching her immigrant parents operate a dry cleaner and a pizza franchise.Democrats argue that Ms. Su, who has strong backing from labor unions, would be a strong worker advocate and enforcer of provisions like the minimum wage, safety regulations and restrictions on child labor, as well as the right to join unions.“You need in terms of a bully pulpit a secretary of labor who makes clear that she is going to stand with working families, and she is prepared to use the powers of the office to take on corporate interests,” Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who heads the labor committee, said in an interview on Wednesday.If confirmed, Ms. Su is also likely to lead the Biden administration’s effort to expand overtime pay for salaried workers. The administration is expected to propose a rule substantially raising the salary threshold — currently about $35,500 — below which most workers automatically qualify for overtime.Those questioning the merits of Ms. Su’s nomination have cited her record as California labor secretary and her support for the state’s labor regulations to suggest that she is a threat to certain industries.When Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the committee’s ranking Republican, pressed at the hearing for assurances that she wouldn’t pursue regulations that could harm the franchise business model, Ms. Su reminded him that her parents had been franchise owners and suggested that their businesses “were the reason my sister and I were able to go to college.”President Biden with Ms. Su and her daughters at the White House in March.Yuri Gripas for The New York TimesThe Flex Association, a trade group representing several prominent gig economy companies, has called attention to her support for a California measure that would have effectively classified gig workers as employees, requiring companies like Uber and DoorDash to pay them a minimum wage and overtime and to contribute to unemployment insurance. (The law was later scaled back through a ballot measure.)The group circulated an email on Wednesday expressing concern that Ms. Su “does not appreciate” that classifying gig workers as employees could cause many to lose access to such work.Some labor experts have disputed this claim, and a rule being finalized by the Labor Department on how to classify workers takes a different approach from the California measure. But Kristin Sharp, the Flex Association’s chief executive, said that the labor secretary would have discretion over how to carry out the new rule and that “we want to make sure that person is objective in his or her views of nontraditional work.” The group has not taken an official stand on Ms. Su’s nomination.Other business groups have cited what they say is Ms. Su’s support for a California law setting up a council to issue health and safety regulations for fast-food restaurants and create an industry-specific minimum wage.“She has supported policies that directly attack our model,” said Matthew Haller, president of the International Franchise Association, alluding to the fast-food measure. A ballot measure next year will allow voters to decide whether to nullify the law. It is unclear from a video the groups point to that she has specifically supported the law.And Republicans and a variety of business groups have highlighted accusations that California issued billions in fraudulent unemployment insurance claims while she was the state’s labor secretary in 2020. At the hearing, Mr. Cassidy recounted a report of a rapper securing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraudulent funds in California and boasting about it on a video.Ms. Su has conceded that a large number of claims were improper. Mr. Sanders pointed out that the overpayments reflected features of a federal program that the state merely administered, and that other states paid out a far higher percentage of fraudulent claims.In recent weeks, a coalition of business groups has erected billboards and run ads critical of Ms. Su in the home states of potentially decisive senators, such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Jon Tester of Montana, all of whom have so far refrained from backing her nomination.The effort is reminiscent of a business-backed campaign against David Weil, whom Mr. Biden tapped to head the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division in 2021, and who had led the agency during the Obama administration. That nomination died on the Senate floor last year after Mr. Manchin, Ms. Sinema and a third Democratic senator, Mark Kelly of Arizona, declined to support him. (Ms. Sinema has since become an independent.)Mr. Weil and his backers lamented the muted response from progressive groups on his behalf. This time, labor unions and other supporters are making a more determined push. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, Liz Shuler, announced on Wednesday that a coalition of unions would make a “six-figure buy” of ads backing Ms. Su in states like Arizona and West Virginia and would urge local union members to contact their senators.The United Mine Workers of America, which is influential in Mr. Manchin’s home state and sat out the fight over Mr. Weil, endorsed Ms. Su last week.Emilie Simons, a spokeswoman for the president, said that the White House felt confident about Ms. Su’s confirmation and that it was working hard for every vote. She said that Ms. Su had offered to meet with every senator on the labor committee and that she had met with senators from both parties.At a Senate Democratic lunch on Tuesday, Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, regarded as one of the more moderate Democrats on the labor committee, spoke up on Ms. Su’s behalf, noting her work on expanding apprenticeships as deputy secretary.Mr. Hickenlooper said in an interview that he had watched Mr. Tester, his undecided colleague from Montana, as he delivered his remarks and that he was “hopeful that we’ll get him.”But Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema may be harder to wrangle, according to veterans of such nomination fights. Mr. Manchin, who is up for re-election next year in a Republican-leaning state, has yet to meet with Ms. Su. Ms. Sinema is likely to face a challenge from a labor-backed candidate in her re-election bid, giving her little incentive to accommodate unions.Larry Cohen, a former president of the Communications Workers of America who advises multiple unions and has helped secure the nomination of many pro-labor officials over the years, said that generating popular support for Ms. Su in Arizona and West Virginia might help her cause with Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema.But, he added, “I think there is good reason to be worried about both of them.”Jonathan Weisman More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How Silicon Valley Bank’s Failure Could Have Spread Far and Wide

    by

    New research suggests large parts of the country remain vulnerable to widespread bank failure in the event of a run on deposits.WASHINGTON — The federal government’s rescue of two failed banks last month has drawn criticism from some lawmakers and investors, who accuse the Biden administration and the Federal Reserve of bailing out wealthy customers in California and New York and sticking bank customers in Middle America with the bill.But new data help explain why government officials declared the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank to be a risk to not just their customers, but also the entire financial system. The numbers suggest that a run on deposits at those two banks could have set off a cascading series of bank failures, crippling small businesses and economic activity across wide parts of the country.The analysis of geographic risks from a banking crisis, prepared at the request of The New York Times, was done by economists at Stanford University, the University of Southern California, Columbia University and Northwestern University.The results show the continuing potential for widespread damage to the entire banking system, which has seen many banks’ financial positions deteriorate as the Fed has raised interest rates to tame inflation. Those rate increases have reduced the value of some government bonds that many banks hold in their portfolios.Although the damage has so far been contained, the research shows that larger runs on banks vulnerable to rate increases could result in a significant drop in credit available to store owners, home borrowers and more. Because so many counties rely on a relatively small number of financial institutions for deposits and loans, and because so many small businesses keep their money close to home, even a modest run on vulnerable banks could effectively stifle access to credit for entire communities.That sort of credit paralysis, the researchers estimate, could afflict nearly half the counties in Missouri, Tennessee and Mississippi — and every county in Vermont, Maine and Hawaii.The analysis helps buttress the case that government officials were making based on anecdotes and preliminary data they had when they orchestrated the bank rescues during that weekend in March. As fears of a wider financial crisis mounted, the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation acted together to ensure depositors could have access to all their money after the banks collapsed — even if their accounts exceeded the $250,000 limit on federally insured deposits. Fed officials also announced they would offer attractive loans to banks that needed help covering depositors’ demands.The moves allowed big companies — like Roku — that kept all their money with Silicon Valley Bank to be fully protected despite the bank’s collapse. That has prompted criticism from lawmakers and analysts who said the government was effectively encouraging risky behavior by bank managers and depositors alike.Even with those moves, the analysts warn, regulators have not permanently addressed the vulnerabilities in the banking system. Those risks leave some of the most economically disadvantaged areas of the country susceptible to banking shocks ranging from a pullback in small-business lending, which may already be underway, to a new depositor run that could effectively cut off easy access to credit for people and companies in counties across the nation.Federal Reserve staff hinted at the risks of a broader banking-related hit to the American economy in minutes from the Fed’s March meeting, which was released on Wednesday. “If banking and financial conditions and their effects on macroeconomic conditions were to deteriorate more than assumed in the baseline,” staff members were reported as saying, “then the risks around the baseline would be skewed to the downside for both economic activity and inflation.”Administration and Fed officials say the actions they took to rescue depositors have stabilized the financial system — including banks that could have been threatened by a depositor run.Lael Brainard, director of President Biden’s National Economic Council, said on Wednesday that banks could learn from the “stresses that the failed banks were under” and were “shoring up their balance sheets.”Drew Angerer/Getty Images“The banking system is very sound — it’s stable,” Lael Brainard, director of President Biden’s National Economic Council, said on Wednesday at an event in Washington hosted by the media outlet Semafor. “The core of the banking system has a great deal of capital.”“What is important is that banks have now seen, bank executives have now seen, some of the stresses that the failed banks were under, and they’re shoring up their balance sheets,” she said.But the researchers behind the new study caution that it is historically difficult for banks to quickly make large changes to their financial holdings. Their data does not account for efforts smaller banks have taken in recent weeks to reduce their exposure to higher interest rates. But the researchers note smaller and regional banks face new risks in the current economic climate, including a downturn in the commercial real estate market, that could set off another run on deposits.“We have to be very careful,” said Amit Seru, an economist at Stanford Graduate School of Business and an author of the study. “These communities are still pretty vulnerable.”Biden administration officials were monitoring a long list of regional banks in the hours after Silicon Valley Bank failed on March 10. They became alarmed when data and anecdotes suggested depositors were lining up to pull money out of many of them.The costs of the rescue they engineered will ultimately be paid by other banks, through a special fee levied by the government.The moves drew criticism, particularly from conservatives. “These losses are borne by the deposit insurance fund,” Senator Bill Hagerty, Republican of Tennessee, said in a recent Banking Committee hearing on the rescues. “That fund is going to be replenished by banks across the nation that had nothing to do with the mismanagement of Silicon Valley Bank or the failure of supervision here.”Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, wrote on Twitter that he would try to block banks from passing on the special fee to consumers. “No way MO customers are paying for a woke bailout,” he said.The researchers found Silicon Valley Bank was more exposed than most banks to the risks of a rapid increase in interest rates, which reduced the value of securities like Treasury bills that it held in its portfolios and set the stage for insolvency when depositors rushed to pull their money from the bank.But using federal regulator data from 2022, the team also found hundreds of U.S. banks had dangerous amounts of deterioration in their balance sheets over the past year as the Fed rapidly raised rates.To map the vulnerabilities of smaller banks across the country, the researchers calculated how much the Fed’s interest rate increases have reduced the value of the asset holdings for individual banks, compared with the value of its deposits. They used that data to effectively estimate the risk of a bank failing in the event of a run on its deposits, which would force bank officials to sell undervalued assets to raise money. Then they calculated the share of banks at risk of failure for every county in the country.Those banks are disproportionately located in low-income communities, areas with high shares of Black and Hispanic populations and places where few residents hold a college degree.They are also the economic backbone of some of the nation’s most conservative states: Two-thirds of the counties in Texas and four-fifths of the counties in West Virginia could have a paralyzing number of their banks go under in the event of even a medium-sized run on deposits, the researchers calculate.In counties across the country, smaller banks are crucial engines of economic activity. In 95 percent of counties, Goldman Sachs researchers recently estimated, at least 70 percent of small business lending comes from smaller and regional banks. Those banks, the Goldman researchers warned, are pulling back on lending “disproportionately” in the wake of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse.Analysts will get new indications of the degree to which banks are moving quickly to pull back on lending and building up capital when three large financial institutions report quarterly earnings on Friday: Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.Mr. Seru of Stanford said the communities that were particularly vulnerable to both a lending slowdown and a potential regional bank run were also the ones that suffered most in the pandemic recession. He said larger financial institutions were unlikely to quickly fill any lending vacuum in those communities if smaller banks failed.Mr. Seru and his colleagues have urged the government to help address those communities’ vulnerabilities by requiring banks to raise more capital to shore up their balance sheets.“The recovery in these neighborhoods is still not there yet,” he said. “And the last thing we want is disruption there.” More

  • 150 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How AI and DNA Are Unlocking the Mysteries of Global Supply Chains

    by

    At a cotton gin in the San Joaquin Valley, in California, a boxy machine helps to spray a fine mist containing billions of molecules of DNA onto freshly cleaned Pima cotton.That DNA will act as a kind of minuscule bar code, nestling amid the puffy fibers as they are shuttled to factories in India. There, the cotton will be spun into yarn and woven into bedsheets, before landing on the shelves of Costco stores in the United States. At any time, Costco can test for the DNA’s presence to ensure that its American-grown cotton hasn’t been replaced with cheaper materials — like cotton from the Xinjiang region of China, which is banned in the United States because of its ties to forced labor.Amid growing concern about opacity and abuses in global supply chains, companies and government officials are increasingly turning to technologies like DNA tracking, artificial intelligence and blockchains to try to trace raw materials from the source to the store.Companies in the United States are now subject to new rules that require firms to prove their goods are made without forced labor, or face having them seized at the border. U.S. customs officials said in March that they had already detained nearly a billion dollars’ worth of shipments coming into the United States that were suspected of having some ties to Xinjiang. Products from the region have been banned since last June.Customers are also demanding proof that expensive, high-end products — like conflict-free diamonds, organic cotton, sushi-grade tuna or Manuka honey — are genuine, and produced in ethically and environmentally sustainable ways.That has forced a new reality on companies that have long relied on a tangle of global factories to source their goods. More than ever before, companies must be able to explain where their products really come from.A technician at Applied DNA Sciences testing samples to trace the raw materials.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesCotton samples that are being processed at the lab.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesThe task may seem straightforward, but it can be surprisingly tricky. That’s because the international supply chains that companies have built in recent decades to cut costs and diversify their product offerings have grown astonishingly complex. Since 2000, the value of intermediate goods used to make products that are traded internationally has tripled, driven partly by China’s booming factories.A large, multinational company may buy parts, materials or services from thousands of suppliers around the world. One of the largest such companies, Procter & Gamble, which owns brands like Tide, Crest and Pampers, has nearly 50,000 direct suppliers. Each of those suppliers may, in turn, rely on hundreds of other companies for the parts used to make its product — and so on, for many levels up the supply chain.To make a pair of jeans, for example, various companies must farm and clean cotton, spin it into thread, dye it, weave it into fabric, cut the fabric into patterns and stitch the jeans together. Other webs of companies mine, smelt or process the brass, nickel or aluminum that is crafted into the zipper, or make the chemicals that are used to manufacture synthetic indigo dye.“Supply chains are like a bowl of spaghetti,” said James McGregor, the chairman of the greater China region for APCO Worldwide, an advisory firm. “They get mixed all over. You don’t know where that stuff comes from.”Harvesting cotton in Xinjiang. Cotton from the region in China is banned in the United States because of its ties to forced labor.Getty ImagesGiven these challenges, some companies are turning to alternative methods, not all proven, to try to inspect their supply chains.Some companies — like the one that sprays the DNA mist onto cotton, Applied DNA Sciences — are using scientific processes to tag or test a physical attribute of the good itself, to figure out where it has traveled on its path from factories to consumer.Applied DNA has used its synthetic DNA tags, each just a billionth of the size of a grain of sugar, to track microcircuits produced for the Department of Defense, trace cannabis supply chains to ensure the product’s purity and even to mist robbers in Sweden who attempted to steal cash from A.T.M.s, leading to multiple arrests.MeiLin Wan, the vice president for textiles at Applied DNA, said the new regulations were creating a “tipping point for real transparency.”“There definitely is a lot more interest,” she added.The cotton industry was one of the earliest adopters of tracing technologies, in part because of previous transgressions. In the mid-2010s, Target, Walmart and Bed Bath & Beyond faced expensive product recalls or lawsuits after the “Egyptian cotton” sheets they sold turned out to have been made with cotton from elsewhere. A New York Times investigation last year documented that the “organic cotton” industry was also rife with fraud.In addition to the DNA mist it applies as a marker, Applied DNA can figure out where cotton comes from by sequencing the DNA of the cotton itself, or analyzing its isotopes, which are variations in the carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms in the cotton. Differences in rainfall, latitude, temperature and soil conditions mean these atoms vary slightly across regions of the world, allowing researchers to map where the cotton in a pair of socks or bath towel has come from.Other companies are turning to digital technology to map supply chains, by creating and analyzing complex databases of corporate ownership and trade.Farmers in India auction their cotton.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesSome firms, for example, are using blockchain technology to create a digital token for every product that a factory produces. As that product — a can of caviar, say, or a batch of coffee — moves through the supply chain, its digital twin gets encoded with information about how it has been transported and processed, providing a transparent log for companies and consumers.Other companies are using databases or artificial intelligence to comb through vast supplier networks for distant links to banned entities, or to detect unusual trade patterns that indicate fraud — investigations that could take years to carry out without computing power.Sayari, a corporate risk intelligence provider that has developed a platform combining data from billions of public records issued globally, is one of those companies. The service is now used by U.S. customs agents as well as private companies. On a recent Tuesday, Jessica Abell, the vice president of solutions at Sayari, ran the supplier list of a major U.S. retailer through the platform and watched as dozens of tiny red flags appeared next to the names of distant companies.“We’re flagging not only the Chinese companies that are in Xinjiang, but then we’re also automatically exploring their commercial networks and flagging the companies that are directly connected to it,” Ms. Abell said. It is up to the companies to decide what, if anything, to do about their exposure.Studies have found that most companies have surprisingly little visibility into the upper reaches of their supply chains, because they lack either the resources or the incentives to investigate. In a 2022 survey by McKinsey & Company, 45 percent of respondents said they had no visibility at all into their supply chain beyond their immediate suppliers.But staying in the dark is no longer feasible for companies, particularly those in the United States, after the congressionally imposed ban on importing products from Xinjiang — where 100,000 ethnic minorities are presumed by the U.S. government to be working in conditions of forced labor — went into effect last year.Uyghur workers at a garment factory in the Xinjiang region of China in 2019.Gilles Sabrie for The New York TimesXinjiang’s links to certain products are already well known. Experts have estimated that roughly one in five cotton garments sold globally contains cotton or yarn from Xinjiang. The region is also responsible for more than 40 percent of the world’s polysilicon, which is used in solar panels, and a quarter of its tomato paste.But other industries, like cars, vinyl flooring and aluminum, also appear to have connections to suppliers in the region and are coming under more scrutiny from regulators.Having a full picture of their supply chains can offer companies other benefits, like helping them recall faulty products or reduce costs. The information is increasingly needed to estimate how much carbon dioxide is actually emitted in the production of a good, or to satisfy other government rules that require products to be sourced from particular places — such as the Biden administration’s new rules on electric vehicle tax credits.Executives at these technology companies say they envision a future, perhaps within the next decade, in which most supply chains are fully traceable, an outgrowth of both tougher government regulations and the wider adoption of technologies.“It’s eminently doable,” said Leonardo Bonanni, the chief executive of Sourcemap, which has helped companies like the chocolate maker Mars map out their supply chains. “If you want access to the U.S. market for your goods, it’s a small price to pay, frankly.”Others express skepticism about the limitations of these technologies, including their cost. While Applied DNA’s technology, for example, adds only 5 to 7 cents to the price of a finished piece of apparel, that may be significant for retailers competing on thin margins.And some express concerns about accuracy, including, for example, databases that may flag companies incorrectly. Investigators still need to be on the ground locally, they say, speaking with workers and remaining alert for signs of forced or child labor that may not show up in digital records.Justin Dillon, the chief executive of FRDM, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending forced labor, said there was “a lot of angst, a lot of confusion” among companies trying to satisfy the government’s new requirements.Importers are “looking for boxes to check,” he said. “And transparency in supply chains is as much an art as it is a science. It’s kind of never done.” More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    How a Trump-Era Rollback Mattered for Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise

    by

    An under-the-radar change to the way regional banks are supervised may have helped the bank’s rapidly growing risks to go unresolved.WASHINGTON — Silicon Valley Bank was growing steadily in 2018 and 2019 — and supervisors at its primary overseer, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, were preparing it for a stricter oversight group, one in which specialists from around the Fed system would vet its risks and point out weak spots.But a decision from officials in Washington halted that move.The Federal Reserve Board — which sets the Fed’s standards for banking regulation — was in the process of putting into effect a bipartisan 2018 law that aimed to make regulation less onerous for small and midsize banks. As the board did that, Randal K. Quarles, the Trump-appointed vice chair for supervision, and his colleagues also chose to recalibrate how banks were supervised in line with the new requirements.As a result, Silicon Valley Bank’s move to the more rigorous oversight group would be delayed. The bank would previously have advanced to the Large and Foreign Bank Organization group after its assets had averaged more than $50 billion for a year; now, that shift would not come until it consistently averaged more than $100 billion in assets.The change proved fateful. Silicon Valley Bank did not fully move to the stronger oversight group until late 2021. Its assets had nearly doubled over the course of that year, to about $200 billion, by the time it came under more intense supervision.By that point, many of the issues that would cause its demise had already begun festering. Those included a customer base heavily dependent on the success of the technology industry, an unusually large share of deposits above the $250,000 limit that the government insures in the event of a bank collapse and an executive team that paid little attention to risk management.Those weak spots appear to have gone unresolved when Silicon Valley Bank was being overseen the way that small and regional banks are: by a small team of supervisors who were in some cases generalists.When the bank finally entered more sophisticated supervision for big banks in late 2021, putting it under the purview of a bigger team of specialist bank overseers with input from around the Fed system, it was immediately issued six citations. Those flagged various problems, including how it was managing its ability to raise cash quickly in times of trouble. By the next summer, its management was rated deficient, and by early 2023, intense scrutiny of the bank had stretched to the Fed’s highest reaches.Big questions remain about why supervisors didn’t do more to ensure that shortcomings were addressed once they became alarmed enough to begin issuing citations. The Fed is conducting an internal investigation of what happened, with results expected on May 1.Michael Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, told lawmakers this week that by the time Silicon Valley Bank came under intense oversight and problems were fully recognized, “in a sense, it was already very late in the process.”Shuran Huang for The New York TimesBut the picture that is emerging is one in which a slow reaction in 2022 was not the sole problem: Silicon Valley Bank’s difficulties also appear to have come to the fore too late to fix them easily, in part because of the Trump-era rollbacks. By deciding to move banks into large-bank oversight much later, Mr. Quarles and his colleagues had created a system that treated even sizable and rapidly ballooning banks with a light touch when it came to how aggressively they were monitored.That has caught the attention of officials from the Fed and the White House as they sort through the fallout left by Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on March 10 and ask what lessons should be learned.“The way the Federal Reserve’s regulation set up the structure for approach to supervision treated firms in the $50 to $100 billion range with lower levels of requirements,” Michael Barr, the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, told lawmakers this week. By the time Silicon Valley Bank’s problems were fully recognized, he said, “in a sense, it was already very late in the process.”About five people were supervising Silicon Valley Bank in the years before its move up to big-bank oversight, according to a person familiar with the matter. The bank was subject to quarterly reviews, and its overseers could choose to put it through horizontal reviews — thorough check-ins that test for a particular weakness by comparing a bank with firms of similar size. But those would not have been a standard part of its oversight, based on the way the Fed runs supervision for small and regional banks.As the bank grew and moved up to large-bank oversight, the size of the supervisory team dedicated to it swelled. By the time it failed, about 20 people were working on Silicon Valley Bank’s supervision, Mr. Barr said this week. It had been put through horizontal reviews, which had flagged serious risks.But such warnings often take time to translate into action. Although the bank’s overseers started pointing out big issues in late 2021, banks typically get leeway to fix problems before they are penalized.“One of the defining features of supervision is that it is an iterative process,” said Kathryn Judge, a financial regulation expert at Columbia Law School.The Fed’s response to the problems at Silicon Valley Bank seemed to be halting even after it recognized risks. Surprisingly, the firm was given a satisfactory liquidity rating in early 2022, after regulators had begun flagging problems, Mr. Barr acknowledged this week. Several people familiar with how supervising operates found that unusual.“We’re trying to understand how that is consistent with the other material,” Mr. Barr said this week. “The question is, why wasn’t that escalated and why wasn’t further action taken?”Yet the high liquidity rating could also tie back to the bank’s delayed move to the large bank supervision group. Bank supervisors sometimes treat a bank more gently during its first year of tougher oversight, one person said, as it adjusts to more onerous regulator attention.There was also turmoil in the San Francisco Fed’s supervisory ranks around the time that Silicon Valley Bank’s risks were growing.Aaron Wojack for The New York TimesThere was also turmoil in the San Francisco Fed’s supervisory ranks around the time that Silicon Valley Bank’s risks were growing. Mary Daly, the president of the reserve bank, had called a meeting in 2019 with a number of the bank supervisory group’s leaders to insist that they work on improving employee satisfaction scores, according to people with knowledge of the event. The meeting was previously reported by Bloomberg.Of all the San Francisco Fed employees, bank supervisors had the lowest satisfaction ratings, with employees reporting that they might face retribution if they spoke out or had different opinions, according to one person.Several supervision officials departed in the following years, retiring or leaving for other reasons. As a result, relatively new managers were at the wheel as Silicon Valley Bank’s risks grew and became clearer.It’s hard to assess whether supervisors in San Francisco — and staff members at the Fed board, who would have been involved in rating Silicon Valley Bank — were unusually slow to respond to the bank’s problems given the secrecy surrounding bank oversight, Ms. Judge said.“We don’t have a baseline,” she said.Even as the Fed tries to understand why problems were not addressed more promptly, the fact that Silicon Valley Bank remained under less rigorous oversight that may not have tested for its specific weaknesses until relatively late in the game is increasingly in focus.“The Federal Reserve system of supervision and regulation is based on a tailored approach,” Mr. Barr said this week. “That framework, which really focuses on asset size, is not sensitive to the kinds of problems we saw here with respect to rapid growth and a concentrated business model.”Plus, the 2018 law and the Fed’s implementation of it probably affected Silicon Valley Bank’s oversight in other ways. The Fed would probably have begun administering full stress tests on the bank earlier without the changes, and the bank might have had to shore up its ability to raise money in a pinch to comply with the “liquidity coverage ratio,” some research has suggested.The White House called on Thursday for regulators to consider reinstating stronger rules for banks with assets of $100 billion to $250 billion. And the Fed is both re-examining the size cutoffs for stricter bank oversight and working on ways to test for “novel” risks that may not tie back cleanly to size, Mr. Barr said this week.But Mr. Quarles, who carried out the tailoring of the 2018 bank rule, has insisted that the bank’s collapse was not the result of changes that the law required or that he chose to make. Even the simplest rung of supervision should have caught the obvious problems that killed Silicon Valley Bank, he said, including a lack of protection against rising interest rates.“It was the simplest risk imaginable,” he said in interview. 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