![]() Signature was a traditional commercial bank with a wide range of activities and customers,' an NYDFS spokesperson said. 'The decisions made over the weekend had nothing to do with crypto. Signature Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 'We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals.'īut NYDFS denied Frank's claims in a statement on Tuesday, saying that its decision to close Signature Bank on Sunday and appoint the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp as receiver 'was based on the current status of the bank and its ability to do business in a safe and sound manner on Monday.' 'I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message,' Frank told CNBC on Monday. ![]() He said the situation had stabilized by the time Sunday that New York regulators took it over. The statement included a reminder that despite its efforts to cater to cryptocurrency holders, it 'does not invest in, does not trade, does not hold, does not custody and does not lend against or make loans collateralized by digital assets.'īut by Friday, there were more withdrawals, which Frank previously said were 'based solely on the contagion from SVB.' Silicon Valley Bank had assets of $209 billion when it collapsed on Friday, and Signature had more than $110 billion in assets, making them the second-largest and third-largest banking failures in US history.įederal regulators have guaranteed all deposits at both banks, even those in excess of the FDIC's $250,000 limit on deposit insurance.Īs worries mounted about Silicon Valley Bank last week, Signature put out a statement seeking to reassure clients and investors that it was stable. In 2018, Frank penned a column calling the $50 billion limit a 'mistake' and the Republican-controlled Congress later raised the limit to $250 billion, relaxing requirements for banks like the two that collapsed in recent days. Signature's assets surpassed $50 billion in 2019, and by the end of last year it had more than $100 billion in assets. However, after joining Signature's board, he publicly argued in favor of relaxing Dodd-Frank's strict capital requirements for banks, which originally applied to any bank with assets of more than $50 billion. Logically, I'm asked to join boards on subjects with which I was identified,' noted Frank.įrank, a Democrat who served in Congress from 1981 until 2013, coauthored the Dodd-Frank act that boosted government oversight of banks following the 2008 financial crisis. And then having retired, not having a pension by my choice, not wanting to be a lobbyist for reasons personal, I need to make some money,' he told FT. 'I worked as a member of Congress for a certain objective. Frank joined the Signature board in 2015, and went on to argue in favor of relaxing the banking regulations that were part of his landmark Dodd-Frank law ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |