Group 1 SVB Summary

pdf

School

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4721

Subject

Finance

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

3

Uploaded by SuperWorldMule36

Report
Silicon Valley Bank Key Points What Really Went Wrong at Silicon Valley Bank - The Economist Most depositors were tech investors with accounts well in excess of the $250,000 insured by the FDIC Silicon Valley Bank had taken a unhedged bet on interest rates staying low by buying large quantities of long term bonds SVB was judged as “too big to fail,” leading to all its deposits being guaranteed by the government - The depositor bail out that isn't covered by the sale of SVB’s assets will be funded by a fund financed by all banks - This is considered by some to be penalizing an entire industry for the irresponsible behavior of only a single bank To prevent other banks from failing the FED is offering them support in the form of loans secured against long-term treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, the same type of assets that SVB had recklessly bought large quantities of. This program offers banks with asset portfolios similar to SVB an opportunity to ensure they have ample cash reserves should depositors need to be paid out. - This is a wide expansion of the FED’s toolkit - These measures will prevent a bank meltdown, but are excessive and largely unnecessary The Dodd-Frank act was implemented after the financial crisis and required banks with more than $50 billion in assets to follow new rules. It was intended to have the losses passed onto investors and away from depositors In 2018 banks lobbied for the lightening of some of these rules The bank run on SVB was so intense and fast that it had to be closed within a working day Even if SVB was eligible for emergency funding from the FED it is doubtful there was even time to arrange it Some argue that this shows the need to abolish limits on deposit insurance and then charge banks for insurance, as the FED will likely not be able to respond in time to provide emergency funding - This causes a moral hazard problem as banks and depositors have little reason to act responsibly if their money is insured FED has to ease off fighting inflation out of fear that higher rates will cause more bank failures With the new massive liquidity support being offered to banks it is unlikely that SVB’s failure will slow the economy much Policy makers need to remedy the oversight that the regulation for banks that are large but not enormous has been inadequate. Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank SVB was a commercial bank founded in 1983 and based in Santa Clara, California.
It ranked 16th in the US by total assets and funded nearly half of the tech and healthcare venture firms such as Block Inc., Fitbit, Cisco, and Airbnb. SVB was also well known for providing mortgages, personal credit lines, private banking, and specialty loans to technology entrepreneurs, and higher-risk start-up business. It failed on March 10, 2023, making a significant U.S. bank collapse since the 2007-2008 crisis. SVB's strategy to invest in long-term securities for higher returns backfired due to Federal Reserve rate hikes. These hikes led to a drop in securities' value, causing significant losses for SVB. Rising interest rates and borrowing costs led to client withdrawals, impacting SVB's cash flow. To manage these withdrawals, SVB on March 8: - Sold over $21 billion in securities. - Borrowed $15 billion. - Announced an emergency sale of treasury stock to raise $2.25 billion. The bank’s actions and warnings from key Silicon Valley investors and customers withdrew a total of $42 billion by the following day led to a bank run. SVB was seized by authorities on March 10, with plans to auction it later. Despite initial deposit risks, the government ensured all depositors could access their funds. The response aimed to protect depositors without a taxpayer-funded bailout. Review of the Federal Reserve’s Supervision and Regulation of Silicon Valley Bank - April 2023 Internal Failures at the Silicon Valley Bank: Board and management inadequately managed risks, leading to vulnerabilities. Shortcomings included foundational weaknesses, concentrated business model, and reliance on uninsured deposits. Lack of risk information, failed internal stress tests, and a focus on short-term profits exacerbated the situation. Supervisory Oversights: Despite rapid growth, Silicon Valley Bank did not face increased supervisory standards. The Federal Reserve failed to recognize critical deficiencies in governance, liquidity, and interest rate risk management. Satisfactory ratings persisted, giving a false sense of security. Inadequate Supervisory Response: Slow and non-assertive supervisory actions, even after identifying vulnerabilities. Transition periods for meeting higher standards allowed problems to persist. Clear evidence of liquidity and interest rate risk issues did not prompt a strong supervisory message. Impact of Regulatory Changes: Board's tailoring approach due to the EGRRCPA reduced standards and impeded effective supervision.
Lower supervisory and regulatory requirements contributed to the bank's failure. Shift in supervisory policies led to a slower response and reluctance to escalate issues.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help