On the 19th local time, the Federal Savings Insurance Corporation issued a statement saying that New York Community Bank has agreed to acquire the signature bank that was closed on the 12th. The future of the larger Silicon Valley bank, which is taken over by the federal agency, remains uncertain. On the 19th, some media broke the news that the Federal Savings Insurance Corporation is considering spinning off and selling Silicon Valley bank assets, which has not been officially confirmed.
Signatory Bank "takes over" Silicon Valley Bank or "split"
The Federal Savings Insurance Corporation issued a statement on the 19th that it has reached an agreement with Flag Bank, a wholly-owned subsidiary of New York Community Bank, to sell most of the deposit business and part of the loan business of the signature bank. From the 20th, all 40 branches of Signatory Bank will be managed by Flag Star Bank. The transaction excludes approximately $40 billion in deposits related to the signature bank's digital banking operations. In addition, about $600 billion in loans from Signature Bank remain under the management of the Federal Savings Insurance Corporation and remain to be disposed of.
On the other hand, the US media reported on the 19th, citing people familiar with the matter, that the US Federal Savings Insurance Corporation is seeking to split and sell the closed Silicon Valley Bank. Silicon Valley Bank is reportedly expected to be split into at least two parts for sale. Among them, Silicon Valley Bank's private banking business will be sold separately, which mainly serves high-net-worth individuals, and the bidding deadline is 22 days; The other part of Silicon Valley Bank, the "transition bank" set up by the Federal Savings Insurance Corporation to take over Silicon Valley bank deposits and assets, will be sold as another part.
The US government's "one guarantee to the end" may create greater risks
Bank of America has successively "thunderstorms", causing market concerns. The industry fears that the spread of panic has triggered a run on other U.S. financial institutions. To this end, the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Savings Insurance Corporation previously announced actions to "back" the deposits of depositors in the bank, including customers with deposits of more than $25,25. Previously, the maximum coverage per depositor-insured bank depositor was $<>,<> under the standard. The US regulator took action to "guarantee bank deposits to the end" caused public concern.
The Wall Street Journal recently wrote that "many observers are worried that ignoring the $25,<> deposit insurance cap may trigger calls for a guaranteed total regardless of the amount." Many argue that full guarantees would encourage irresponsible behavior. What the Wall Street Journal is talking about is the so-called "moral hazard" problem, that is, when actors are not fully responsible for their actions, they are more inclined to take greater risks, which may cause turmoil in the United States and even global financial markets.
Mohammed Elian, Chief Economic Advisor of Allianz AG: Does this lead to irresponsible behavior? There is clearly this risk, which is why we want to control the "moral hazard" and regulators must ensure that regulation is in place.
Steve Southnick, Chief Strategy Officer, Interactive Brokers Group: That's the real problem. American politicians are wrapped up in the U.S. banking crisis, and when business and politics are mixed, things get a bad look. It is understandable to hope that the deposit insurance limit will be raised. Like you said, mentioning $100 million, that seems reasonable. But if there is no cap on deposit insurance at all, it will indeed cause "moral hazard".
The wool comes out of the sheep and the "bottom" money will be passed on to taxpayers
Although the US government has repeatedly claimed that the relevant "bottom line" will not use taxpayers' money, according to US media analysis, this is not the case.
The Associated Press published an article on the 17th, titled "Will Americans End Up Paying for Bank Mistakes?" According to the analysis of the article, the deposit insurance fund comes from the premiums paid by banks for deposit insurance, and its purpose is to provide depositors with funds of less than $25,<> when the bank is closed. But now, institutions such as the Federal Reserve say that all deposits in the bank will be paid in full - which means that the Federal Savings Insurance Corporation is actually using the funds of customers who have paid deposit insurance to cover the full amount for customers who have not paid deposit insurance.
The Associated Press said that although the American people do not have to bear the cost directly, in the long run, the extra deposit insurance premiums paid by other US banks will eventually be passed on to the American people.
Steve Southnick, Chief Strategy Officer, Interactive Brokers Group: The question is how the deposit insurance cap will be reassessed and passed on to bank customers in the form of higher premiums. Because the previous premium payment was up to $25,<> (deposit), there was no upper limit.
U.S. Senator: U.S. banks and railroads "chase short-term profits at the expense of everything else"
At a recent hearing of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown compared the closure of the Silicon Valley bank to the derailment of the "poisoned train" in early Ohio in early February. He said the two incidents reflected what the U.S. banking and railroad industries have in common: colluding with politicians to pursue maximum profits at all costs.
Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio: I want to say a few words about the people of East Palestine, Ohio, and the closure of the Silicon Valley Bank. The two things have one thing in common: Companies follow Wall Street's business model, chasing short-term profits at the expense of everything else. They are helped and abetted by corporate lobbyists and politicians here who, in their own way, weaken the rules that are supposed to protect the people we serve. And now, the wage earners in Ohio and across the country have paid the price.
According to a 2015 lobbying document by Norfolk Southern Railroad, which belongs to the Ohio derailed "poison train," the company lobbied Congress and the executive agency responsible for setting the Department of Transportation's rules "against additional speed limits and requiring the installation of ECP (electronically controlled air braking systems)."
According to Open Secrets, a nonpartisan organization in the United States that tracks the use of political money, the American Association of Railroads spent $2015.2022 million lobbying the federal government between 3940 and <>. Companies such as Norfolk Southern Railroad and Union Pacific Railroad provided millions of dollars in political contributions.
U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio: Think of two of the most influential lobbyists in this country for a hundred years, the bank and the railroad. That's what caused the 2008 financial crisis, which wiped out working-class savings and delayed an entire generation of young Americans. Wall Street certainly hasn't changed the way it does things. In the years that followed, Wall Street banks lobbied to revoke the safeguards we passed after that crisis.
U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio: The now-defunct Silicon Valley Bank spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting to exempt its CEO from the hearing. I guess he is now unemployed, saying that their banks should not be subject to strong regulation because "our activities and business models are low risk". "Low risk", these are his exact words. We all know what they really are after, maximizing profits, and what risks they are.
In 2015, Silicon Valley Bank CEO Becker personally lobbied the Senate to demand that Congress reduce its scrutiny of financial institutions and exempt a group of financial institutions, including Silicon Valley Bank. In 2018, Silicon Valley banks' lobbying was ultimately successful, and the U.S. Congress raised the criteria for determining that banks have systemic risk, and both Silicon Valley banks and signature banks were exempted from this regulation. Federal records show that between 2015 and 2018, Becker spent more than $50,<> lobbying the federal government, according to the website of the Daily Mail. (CCTV News Client)