Silicon Valley Bank

Latest story

138 Shares199 Views

Yellen Says Stable Financial System Is Key to U.S. Economic Strength

by

The Treasury secretary will offer an upbeat assessment of the economy on Tuesday, a year after the nation’s banking system faced turmoil.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen will tell lawmakers on Tuesday that the United States has had a “historic” economic recovery from the pandemic but that regulators must vigilantly safeguard the financial system from an array of looming risks to preserve the gains of the last three years.Ms. Yellen will deliver the comments in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee nearly a year after the Biden administration and federal regulators took aggressive steps to stabilize the nation’s banking system following the abrupt failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.While turmoil in the banking system has largely subsided, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is headed by Ms. Yellen, has been reviewing how it tracks and responds to risks to financial stability. Like other government bodies, the council did not anticipate or warn regulators about the problems that felled several regional banks.“Our continued economic strength depends on a solid and resilient U.S. financial system,” Ms. Yellen said in her prepared remarks.Last year’s bank collapses stemmed from a confluence of events, including a failure by banks to properly prepare for the rapid rise in interest rates. As interest rates rose, Silicon Valley Bank and others absorbed huge losses, creating a panic among depositors who scrambled to pull out their money. To prevent a more widespread run on the banking system, regulators took control of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank and invoked emergency measures to assure depositors that they would not lose their funds.The bank failures — and the government’s rescue — prompted debate over whether more needed to be done to ensure that customer deposits were protected and whether bank regulators were able to properly police risk.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    The Fed’s Vice Chair for Supervision Suggests Big-Bank Regulation Changes

    by

    In a series of changes that has bank lobbyists on the defensive, Michael Barr is calling for higher bank capital and tougher annual stress tests.Michael S. Barr, the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision, announced on Monday that he would be pushing for significant changes to how America’s largest banks were overseen in a bid to make them more resilient in times of trouble — partly by ratcheting up how much capital they have to get them through a rough patch.The overhaul would require the largest banks to increase their holdings of capital — cash and other readily available assets that could be used to absorb losses in times of trouble. Mr. Barr predicted that his tweaks, if put into effect, would be “equivalent to requiring the largest banks hold an additional two percentage points of capital.”“The beauty of capital is that it doesn’t care about the source of the loss,” Mr. Barr said in his speech previewing the proposed changes. “Whatever the vulnerability or the shock, capital is able to help absorb the resulting loss.”Mr. Barr’s proposals are not a done deal: They would need to make it through a notice-and-comment period — giving banks, lawmakers and other interested parties a chance to voice their views. If the Fed Board votes to institute them, the transition will take time. But the sweeping set of changes that he set out meaningfully tweak how banks both police their own risks and are overseen by government regulators.“It’s definitely meaty,” said Ian Katz, an analyst at Capital Alpha who covers banking regulation.The Fed’s vice chair for supervision, who was nominated by President Biden, has spent months reviewing capital rules for America’s largest banks, and his results have been hotly anticipated: Bank lobbyists have for months been warning about the changes he might propose. Midsize banks in particular have been outspoken, saying that any increase in regulatory requirements would be costly for them, reining in their ability to lend.Monday’s speech made clear why banks have been worried. Mr. Barr wants to update capital requirements based on bank risk “to better reflect credit, trading and operational risk,” he said in his remarks, delivered at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.For instance, banks would no longer be able to rely on internal models to estimate some types of credit risk — the chance of losses on loans — or for particularly tough-to-predict market risks. Beyond that, banks would be required to model risks for individual trading desks for particular asset classes, instead of at the firm level.“These changes would raise market risk capital requirements by correcting for gaps in the current rules,” Mr. Barr said.Perhaps anticipating more bank pushback, Mr. Barr also listed existing rules that he did not plan to tighten, among them special capital requirements that apply only to the very largest banks.The new proposal would also try to address vulnerabilities laid bare early this year when a series of major banks collapsed.One factor that led to the demise of Silicon Valley Bank — and sent a shock wave across the midsize banking sector — was that the bank was sitting on a pile of unrealized losses on securities classified as “available for sale.”The lender had not been required to count those paper losses when it was calculating how much capital it needed to weather a tough period. And when it had to sell the securities to raise cash, the losses came back to bite.Mr. Barr’s proposed adjustments would require banks with assets of $100 billion or more to account for unrealized losses and gains on such securities when calculating their regulatory capital, he said.The changes would also toughen oversight for a wider group of large banks. Mr. Barr said his more stringent rules would apply to firms with $100 billion or more in assets — lowering the threshold for tight oversight, which now applies the most enhanced rules to banks that are internationally active or have $700 billion or more in assets. Of the estimated 4,100 banks in the nation, roughly 30 hold $100 billion or more in assets.Mr. Katz said the expansion of tough rules to a wider set of banks was the most notable part of the proposal: Such a tweak was expected based on remarks from other Fed officials recently, he said, but “it’s quite a change.”The bank blowups this year illustrated that even much smaller banks have the potential to unleash chaos if they collapse.Still, “we’re not going to know how significant these changes are until the lengthy rule-making process plays out over the next couple of years,” said Dennis Kelleher, the chief executive of the nonprofit Better Markets.Mr. Kelleher said that in general Mr. Barr’s ideas seemed good, but added that he was troubled by what he saw as a lack of urgency among regulators.“When it comes to bailing out the banks, they act with urgency and decisiveness,” he said, “but when it comes to regulating the banks enough to prevent crashes, they’re slow and they take years.”Bank lobbyists criticized Mr. Barr’s announcement.“Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Barr appears to believe that the largest U.S. banks need even more capital, without providing any evidence as to why,” Kevin Fromer, the chief executive of the lobby group the Financial Services Forum, said in a statement to the news media on Monday.“Further capital requirements on the largest U.S. banks will lead to higher borrowing costs and fewer loans for consumers and businesses — slowing our economy and impacting those on the margin hardest,” Mr. Fromer said. Susan Wachter, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, said the proposed changes were “long overdue.” She said it was a relief to know that a plan to make them was underway.The Fed vice chair hinted that additional bank oversight tweaks inspired by the March turmoil were coming.“I will be pursuing further changes to regulation and supervision in response to the recent banking stress,” Mr. Barr said in his speech. “I expect to have more to say on these topics in the coming months.” More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials Were Split Over June Rate Pause, Minutes Show

    by

    In the Federal Reserve’s last meeting, “several” participants thought rates may have moved high enough to get inflation under control.Federal Reserve officials were unanimous in their decision to raise interest rates earlier this month, but were conflicted over whether additional increases would be necessary to bring inflation under control, according to minutes from the Fed’s last meeting released on Wednesday.The Fed voted to raise interest rates by a quarter-point on May 3, to a range of 5 to 5.25 percent, the 10th straight increase since the central bank started its campaign to rein in inflation last year. Although officials left the door open to further rate increases, the minutes make clear that “several” policymakers were leaning toward a pause.“Several participants noted that if the economy evolved along the lines of their current outlooks, then further policy firming after this meeting may not be necessary,” the minutes said.Still, some officials believed “additional policy firming would likely be warranted at future meetings” since progress on bringing inflation back to the central bank’s 2 percent target could continue to be “unacceptably slow.”Policymakers believed that the Fed’s moves over the past year had significantly contributed to tighter financial conditions, and they noted that labor market conditions were starting to ease. But they agreed that the labor market was still too hot, given the strong gains in job growth and an unemployment rate near historically low levels.Officials also agreed that inflation was “unacceptably high.” Although price increases have shown signs of moderating in recent months, declines were slower than officials expected, and officials were concerned that consumer spending could remain strong and keep inflation elevated. Some noted, however, that tighter credit conditions could slow household spending and dampen business investment.Fed officials believed the U.S. banking system was “sound and resilient” after the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank this year led to turbulence in the banking sector. Although they noted that banks might be pulling back on lending, policymakers said it was too soon to tell how big of an impact credit tightening might have on the overall economy.One source of concern for policymakers was brinkmanship over the nation’s debt limit, which caps how much money the United States can borrow. If the cap is not raised by June 1, the Treasury Department could be unable to pay all of its bills in a timely manner, resulting in a default. Many officials said it was “essential that the debt limit be raised in a timely manner” to avoid the risk of severely damaging the economy and rattling financial markets.The central bank’s next move remains uncertain, with policymakers continuing to leave their options open ahead of their June meeting.“Whether we should hike or skip at the June meeting will depend on how the data come in over the next three weeks,” Christopher Waller, a Federal Reserve governor, said in a speech on Wednesday.The president of the Minneapolis Fed, Neel Kashkari, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal last week that he could support holding rates steady at the June 13-14 meeting to give policymakers more time to assess how the economy is shaping up.“I’m open to the idea that we can move a little bit more slowly from here,” he said.Officials have reiterated that they will continue to monitor incoming data before reaching a decision. On Friday, the Commerce Department will release a fresh reading of the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, the Fed’s preferred gauge of inflation. Early next month, the federal government will also release new data on job growth in May. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    San Francisco Fed Ties to S.V.B. Chief Attracts Scrutiny to Century-Old Setup

    by

    As Greg Becker, the former C.E.O. of Silicon Valley Bank, prepares to testify before Congress, boards that oversee regional Federal Reserve branches are in the spotlight.The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank has drawn attention to the relationship between the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which was in charge of overseeing safety and soundness at the lender, and the bank’s former chief executive, Greg Becker, who for years sat on the San Francisco Fed’s board of directors.The bank’s collapse on March 10 has prompted criticism of the Fed, whose bank supervisors were slow to spot and stop problems before Silicon Valley Bank experienced a devastating run that necessitated a sweeping government response.Now, Mr. Becker could face lawmaker questions about his board role — and whether it created too close a link between the bank and its regulators — when he testifies on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee about Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse.In prepared testimony published before the hearing, Mr. Becker said he was “truly sorry” for the bank’s failure. “I do not believe that any bank could survive a bank run of that velocity and magnitude,” he said.Mr. Becker’s position on the San Francisco Fed board would have given him little formal power, according to current and former Fed employees and officials. The Fed’s 12 reserve banks — semiprivate institutions dotted across the country — each has a nine-person board of directors, three of whom come from the banking industry. Those boards have no say in bank supervision, and serve mainly as advisers for the Fed bank’s leadership.But many acknowledged that the setup created the appearance of coziness between S.V.B. and the Fed. Some outside experts and politicians are beginning to question whether the way the Fed has been organized for more than a century makes sense today.“They’re like a glorified advisory committee,” said Kaleb Nygaard, who researches central banks at the University of Pennsylvania. “It causes massive headaches in the best of times, potentially fatal aneurysms in the worst of times.”The Fed boards date back to 1913.In the days after Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, headlines about Mr. Becker’s close ties to his bank’s regulator abounded, with many raising questions about a possible conflict of interest.Though regional Fed presidents and other officials play a limited role in bank oversight — which is mostly in Washington’s domain — some critics wondered if supervisors at the San Francisco Fed failed to effectively police Silicon Valley Bank partly because of the reserve bank’s close ties to the bank’s chief executive.And some asked: Why do banks have representatives on the Fed Board at all?The answer is tied to the Fed’s history.When Congress and the White House created the Fed in 1913, they were skeptical about giving either the government or the private sector unilateral power over the nation’s money supply. So they compromised. They created a public Fed Board in Washington, alongside quasi-private reserve banks around the country.Those reserve banks, which ended up numbering 12 in total, would be set up like private companies with banks as their shareholders. And much like other private companies, they would be overseen by boards — ones that included bank representatives. Each of the Fed reserve banks has nine board members, or directors. Three of them come from banks, while the others come from other financial companies, businesses, and labor and community groups.“The setup is the way that it is because of the way the Fed was set up in 1913,” said William Dudley, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who said that the directors served mainly as a sort of advisory focus group on banking issues and operational issues, like cybersecurity.The boards may give members benefits.Several former Fed officials said that the bank-related board members provided a valuable function, offering real-time insight into the finance industry. And 10 current and former Fed employees interviewed for this article agreed on one point: These boards have relatively little official power in the modern era.While they vote for changes on a formerly important interest rate at the Fed — called the discount rate — that role has become much less critical over time. Board members select Fed presidents, though since the 2010 Dodd Frank law, the bank-tied directors have not been allowed to participate in those votes.But the law didn’t go so far as to cut bank representatives from the boards altogether because of a lobbying push to keep them intact, said Aaron Klein, who was deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department at the time and worked closely on the law’s passage.“The Fed didn’t want that, and neither did the bankers,” Mr. Klein said.From a bank’s perspective, directorships offer prestige: Regional Fed board members rub shoulders with other bank and community leaders and with powerful central bankers.They might also offer either an actual or a perceived information advantage about the economy and about monetary policy. Although the discount rate is not as important today, directors at some regional banks are given economic briefings as they make their decisions.Mr. Becker would have seen Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, at meetings held roughly once a month, her calendars suggest.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesRegional board discount votes have often been seen as a sort of weather vane for how a regional bank’s leadership is thinking about policy — suggesting that directors might know how their president is going to vote when it comes to the federal funds rate, the important interest rate that the Fed uses to guide the speed of the economy.That is notable in an era in which Wall Street traders hang on Fed officials’ every word when it comes to interest rates.“It’s a very awkward thing,” said Narayana Kocherlakota, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. “There’s no gain to having them vote on discount rates.”Renée Adams, a former New York Fed researcher who studies corporate boards and is now at the University of Oxford, has found that when a bank executive becomes a director, the stock price of their firm rises on the news.“The market believes that they have some advantage,” she said.And Board members do get substantial face time with Fed presidents, who meet regularly with their directors. Mr. Becker would have seen Mary C. Daly, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, at meetings held roughly once a month, her calendars suggest.‘Supervisory leniency’ is a risk.Bank-tied directors have no direct role in supervision, nor can they appoint officials or participate in budget decisions related to bank oversight, according to the Fed.But Mr. Klein is skeptical that Mr. Becker’s position on the San Francisco Fed’s board did not matter at all in the case of Silicon Valley Bank.“Who wants to be the person raising problems about the C.E.O. who is on the board of your own C.E.O.?” he said, explaining that even though the organizational structure might have drawn clear lines, those may not have cleanly applied in the “real world.”Ms. Adams’s research found that banks whose executives sat on boards did in fact see fewer enforcement actions — slaps on the wrist from Fed supervisors — during the director’s tenure. “There may be supervisory leniency,” she said.Changing the system might prove difficult.This is not the first time the Fed regional boards have raised ethical issues. In the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, Dick Fuld, the Lehman Brothers chief executive at the time, and Steve Friedman, who was a director at Goldman Sachs, both served on the New York Fed board.Mr. Fuld resigned just before Lehman collapsed in 2008. Mr. Friedman left in 2009, after news broke that he had bought Goldman Sachs stock during the crisis, at a time when the Treasury and the Fed were drawing up plans to bolster big banks.Given that controversy, politicians have at times focused on the Fed boards. The Democratic Party included language in its 2016 platform to bar executives of financial institutions from serving on reserve bank boards. And the issue has recently garnered bipartisan interest. Draft legislation under development by members of the Senate Banking Committee would limit directorships to small banks — those with less than $10 billion in assets, according to a person familiar with the material.The committee has a hearing on Fed accountability planned for May 17. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts, and Rick Scott, Republican from Florida, plan to introduce the legislation ahead of that, a spokesperson for Ms. Warren said.“It’s dangerous and unethical for executives from the largest banks to serve on Fed boards where these bankers could secure preferential regulatory treatment or exploit privileged information,” Ms. Warren said in a statement.But — as the Dodd Frank legislation illustrated — stripping banks of their power at the Fed has been a heavy lift.“As a political target,” said Ms. Binder, the political scientist, “it’s a little in the weeds.” More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

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

    by

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

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    A Timeline of How the Banking Crisis Has Unfolded

    by

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

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

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

    by

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

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    First Republic Lurches as It Struggles to Find a Savior

    by

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

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

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

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    First Republic Bank Enters New Free Fall as Concerns Mount

    by

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