The run on Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) — on which nearly half of all venture-backed tech start-ups in the US depend — is in part a rerun of a familiar story, but it is more than that. Once again, economic policy and financial regulation has proven inadequate.
The news about the second-biggest bank failure in US history came just days after US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell assured the US Congress that the financial condition of the country’s banks was sound.
However, the timing should not be surprising. Given the large and rapid increases in interest rates Powell engineered — probably the most significant since former US Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker’s interest-rate hikes of 40 years ago — it was predicted that dramatic movements in the prices of financial assets would cause trauma somewhere in the financial system.
Illustration: Mountain People
Again, Powell assured us not to worry — despite abundant historical experience indicating that we should be worried. Powell was part of former US president Donald Trump’s regulatory team, which worked to weaken the Dodd-Frank bank regulations enacted after the 2008 financial meltdown to free “smaller” banks from the standards applied to the largest, systemically important, banks.
By the standards of Citibank, SVB is small. However, it is not small in the lives of the millions who depend on it.
Powell said that there would be pain as the Fed relentlessly raised interest rates — not for him or many of his friends in private capital, who reportedly were planning to make a killing as they hoped to sweep in to buy uninsured deposits in SVB at 50 to 60 cents on the US dollar, before the government made it clear that these depositors would be protected.
The worst pain would be reserved for members of marginalized and vulnerable groups, like young non-white males. Their unemployment rate is typically four times the national average, so an increase from 3.6 percent to 5 percent translates to an increase from about 15 to 20 percent for them.
Powell blithely calls for such unemployment increases — falsely claiming that they are necessary to bring down the inflation rate — with nary an appeal for assistance, or even a mention of the long-term costs.
Now, as a result of Powell’s callous — and totally unnecessary — advocacy of pain, we have a new set of victims, and the US’ most dynamic sector and region will be put on hold. Silicon Valley’s start-up entrepreneurs, often young, thought the government was doing its job, so they focused on innovation, not on checking their bank’s balance sheet daily — which in any case they could not have done. (Full disclosure: my daughter, the CEO of an education start-up, is one of those dynamic entrepreneurs.)
TECH SPEEDS COLLAPSE
While new technologies have not changed the fundamentals of banking, they have increased the risk of bank runs. It is much easier to withdraw funds than it once was, and social media turbocharges rumors that could spur a wave of simultaneous withdrawals — although SVB reportedly simply did not respond to orders to transfer money out, creating what could be a legal nightmare.
Reportedly, SVB’s downfall was not due to the kind of bad lending practices that led to the 2008 crisis and that represent a fundamental failure in banks performing their central role in credit allocation. Rather, it was more prosaic: All banks engage in “maturity transformation,” making short-term deposits available for long-term investment. SVB had bought long-term bonds, exposing the institution to risks when yield curves changed dramatically.
New technology also makes the old US$250,000 limit on federal deposit insurance absurd, as some firms engage in regulatory arbitrage by scattering funds over a large number of banks. It is insane to reward them at the expense of those who trusted regulators to do their job. What does it say about a country when those who work hard and introduce new products that people want are brought down simply because the banking system fails them? A safe and sound banking system is a sine qua non of a modern economy, and yet the US’ is not exactly inspiring confidence.
As Barry Ritholtz wrote on Twitter: “Just as there are no atheists in Fox Holes, there are also no Libertarians during a financial crisis.” A host of crusaders against government rules and regulations suddenly became champions of a government bailout of SVB, just as the financiers and policymakers who engineered the massive deregulation that led to the 2008 crisis called for bailing out those who caused it.
Former US secretary of the treasury Lawrence Summers, who led the financial deregulation charge under former US president Bill Clinton, also called for a bailout of SVB — all the more remarkable given that he took a strong stance against helping students with their debt burdens.
The answer now is the same as it was 15 years ago. The shareholders and bondholders, who benefited from the firm’s risky behavior, should bear the consequences. However, SVB’s depositors — firms and households that trusted regulators who repeatedly reassured the public they were doing their jobs — should be made whole, whether above or below the US$250,000 “insured” amount.
To do otherwise would cause long-term damage to one of the US’ most vibrant economic sectors. Whatever one thinks of Big Tech, innovation must continue, including in areas such as green tech and education.
More broadly, doing nothing would send a dangerous message to the public: The only way to be sure your money is protected is to put it in the systemically important “too big to fail” banks. This would result in even greater market concentration — and less innovation — in the US financial system.
FIXING FAILURES
After an anguishing weekend for those potentially affected throughout the country, the government finally did the right thing — it guaranteed that all depositors would be made whole, preventing a bank run that could have disrupted the economy. At the same time, the events made clear that something was wrong with the system.
Some might say that bailing out SVB’s depositors could lead to “moral hazard.” That is nonsense. Banks’ bondholders and shareholders are still at risk if they do not oversee managers properly. Ordinary depositors are not supposed to be managing bank risk; they should be able to rely on our regulatory system to ensure that if an institution calls itself a bank, it has the financial wherewithal to pay back what is put into it.
SVB represents more than the failure of a single bank. It is emblematic of deep failures in the conduct of both regulatory and monetary policy. Like the 2008 crisis, it was predictable and predicted. Let us hope that those who helped create this mess can play a constructive role in minimizing the damage, and that this time, all of us — bankers, investors, policymakers and the public — finally learn the right lessons.
The US needs stricter regulation to ensure that all banks are safe. All bank deposits should be insured, and the costs should be borne by those who benefit the most: wealthy individuals and corporations, and those who rely most on the banking system, based on deposits, transactions and other relevant metrics.
It has been more than 115 years since the panic of 1907, which led to the establishment of the US Federal Reserve System. New technologies have made panics and bank runs easier, but the consequences can be even more severe. It is time that our framework of policymaking and regulation responds.
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, a professor at Columbia University and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS