In the case of SVB it wasn’t fraud though, it was more poor risk management; they didn’t hedge against an increase in interest rates and that, together with the bank run when people learned about it, killed them. But yeah, the common pattern is failure.
In the case of SVB it wasn’t fraud though, it was more poor risk management; they didn’t hedge against an increase in interest rates and that, together with the bank run when people learned about it, killed them. But yeah, the common pattern is failure.
Calling using client funds as collateral for risky investments (over and over again) as poor risk management it is a bit of an understatement.
It wasn’t technically illegal nor was it fraud since it had an exemption from the Volcker Rule you’re referring to.
It’s illegal to misrepresent what you are using your clients funds for, as was proved in court.
Edit: wait, I think that was SBF rather than SVB. Why are these acronyms so similar :(
it doesn’t help that they were both featured on Forbes 😅
All they needed to do was put “Hookers and blow on yachts” in really, really small print somewhere.
Damn I also read yours as SBF at first
Do banks have the authority to freeze withdrawals?
I don’t get why SVP didn’t just block all withdrawals as the panic set it.
In theory yes:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run)
But IMO freezing withdrawals would just add even more panic when the last thing you want as a bank is have more clients be anxious about their money.