|
|
|
|
|
|
by arcticbull
1192 days ago
|
|
|
While of course true for many reasons (including facilitating the existence of ransomware while providing literally no other offsetting value) that's not why the bank was shuttered. It was shuttered for the same reason SVB and Silvergate were closed. They had long-duration assets but needed capital now to facilitate withdrawals, which they had a lot of because of the crypto downturn. It was their lack of diversification and failure to adequately manage maturity risk. Which Barney is in part to blame. So of course the fingers are pointed in all directions, especially the gubmint. |
|
|
Silvergate was significantly impaired by the crypto blow-ups [1]. That forced them to sell their short-duration, liquid holdings. It also started their stock-price slide [2]. The combination put them in a uniquely vulnerable and continuously degrading position. Signature wasn't as badly hit by the blow-up, but its stock started sliding with Silvergate. Perceptions matter, and when Silvergate folded, non-crypto depositors began pulling money from Signature.
Had Signature not banked crypto, or been publicly affiliated with it, they would have likely survived.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-03-09/silver...
[2] https://www.barrons.com/articles/crypto-silvergate-signature...