I think sloppy data is not a reason to close a bank that you have not decided was insolvent, and they’ve never said we were insolvent. I think that they overreacted to what they saw was our problem with data, which may well have existed, but the data was improving. They denied that in their statement, but I don’t fully believe that. Now, the question is, why did they react so harshly to what they said was our inability to give them the sufficient data? I believe it was probably to send the message that even though we were doing crypto stuff responsibly, they don’t want banks doing crypto. And I think it’s very clear if we had the benefit of those two announcements, we’d still be an ongoing bank. I mean, I was disappointed when they closed it, and sort of vindicated - they have not argued that we were insolvent. I’m very disappointed to learn, apparently, the Department of Financial Services in New York, which did the closing, hasn’t said we were insolvent! They said, well, they had a problem, because they couldn’t get sufficient data. The closure of Signature Bank surprised a lot of people, because it didn’t initially seem affected by the run earlier this year at Silvergate, the California-based bank that primarily served the crypto industry. And secondly, if they’d allowed us to open on Monday, we would have been in good shape we would have been operational. If the FDIC and the Fed had done on Friday what they did Sunday, we would not have been in any trouble. And they panicked and started withdrawing. So what you had was, Silicon Valley is deteriorating, failing we are seen by some people as a crypto bank and, secondly, we have a large number of uninsured deposits. I lost on that for a variety of political reasons. And years ago when we did the original Dodd-Frank bill, I wanted to extend the deposit guarantee to cover businesses that had to have a lot of cash on hand. That’s because our customer base is made up of major property owners. We were a facilitator.īut the other part we had was this: We had large depositors way beyond $250,000. We weren’t having crypto as our own asset - we were simply allowing two businesses that were customers of ours that wanted to deal with each other in crypto to do so. We’re a big New York City housing lender more than anything else, and commercial property. Because whatever Silicon Valley had with regard to high-tech and crypto, we don’t. I can tell you from Signature’s part was that it triggered a run on deposits in our bank irrationally. I’m not familiar with Silicon Valley Bank, so I can’t tell you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |