The recent series of high-profile bank failures in the United States has sparked intense debate and scrutiny of the role of crypto-friendly policies and regulatory easing in the banking system. California’s Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Signature Bank, and Silvergate Bank all experienced rapid closures in March, raising concerns of a systemic vulnerability within the sector. The New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and the U.S. Federal Reserve Board have since released their reviews, concluding that a combination of risk mismanagement and insufficient oversight had led to these banks’ demise.
Both Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were found to have experienced rapid growth without adequately developing their risk control frameworks. Supervisory examinations revealed deficiencies, but the changing supervisory team and the banks’ rapid expansion hindered addressing these issues. Regulatory easing with the 2019 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) contributed to a “tailoring approach” for many large banks, including SVB, favouring slower regulatory action and further exacerbating the situation.
A critical aspect of the debate is the role of the banks’ crypto-friendly stances in contributing to their failure. Their high portion of uninsured deposits, which are not covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), suggests an increased exposure to the volatile crypto market–a potential factor in the banks’ instability. The NYDFS pinpointed the beginning of Signature Bank’s challenges to the bankruptcy of crypto exchange FTX in November, which led to tighter monitoring of the bank’s liquidity.
The fallout from these bank failures extended far beyond their doorsteps, with Swiss Credit Suisse undergoing a rescue buyout by UBS and the U.S. bank First Republic experiencing a significant decline in share price. This widespread instability is raising questions about the broader banking industry’s approach to risk management, crypto-friendly policies, and the effectiveness of regulators in addressing problems.
Critics argue that the failures highlight the need for stricter oversight and supervision, as well as clear guidelines for risk control frameworks. Government and regulators must address the industry’s vulnerability to risks associated with cryptocurrency, which may require updating regulations and increasing vigilance among the banks in handling such volatile assets.
On the other hand, proponents of crypto-friendly policies contend that these are isolated instances and should not overshadow the transformative potential of blockchain technology and digital assets in the financial sector. Blockchain’s inherent transparency and security, they argue, can reduce risk, streamline processes, and improve efficiency in the long run.
In conclusion, the recent high-profile bank failures expose critical vulnerabilities within the banking industry, with crypto-friendly policies and regulatory easing playing a significant role in enabling risk mismanagement. As the debate rages, the industry must find a balance between embracing the benefits of innovative technologies and ensuring robust risk management to protect the stability of the banking system.
