[ad_1]
House lawmakers tore into top U.S. bank regulators Wednesday, questioning their competency and saying examiners were asleep at the wheel, at a second day of congressional hearings this week about how Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed practically overnight on March 10 and March 12.
“We need competent financial supervisors, but Congress can’t legislate competence,” House Financial Services chairman Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., told top officials at the Federal Reserve, Treasury and FDIC at the beginning the hearing.
The committee’s ranking member, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., questioned whether the repeated warnings regulators delivered to SVB about its balance sheet and long-term interest risks were sufficient.
“The light touch cautions from the Fed to SVB management are clearly not what Congress intended for bank supervision,” said Waters.
McHenry slammed the panel for a lack of transparency over that fateful weekend when the three regulators hastily arranged backup financing to ensure depositors at the two banks wouldn’t lose any money in their collapse.
There are no notes publicly available from regulators’ emergency meetings the weekend the banks collapsed, McHenry said. “That lack of transparency has a negative effect on the public view of the safety of the financial arena,” he added.
The question of what records would be given to Congress came up repeatedly in the contentious hearing.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., requested a broad survey of banks that are undercapitalized the same way SVB was.
“Are there any banks out there, and roughly how many, that have capital of under 5% if you subtract from their stated capital from their unhedged, unrealized losses on long term debt?” Sherman asked the regulators.
“Let us get back to you on that,” said Martin Gruenberg, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. “We’ll get the numbers and share them with you very quickly.”
Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga, Mich., demanded raw, confidential supervisory information about the banks, available to regulators ahead of the collapses.
Gruenberg did not agree explicitly to provide confidential information, instead suggesting the committee would need to issue a subpoena for this information. “I think you have the authority to compel that information,” he said, “and [FDIC] will be responsive to you.”
Members of the Republican majority House challenged many of the decisions made by regulators in the hours and days after SVB collapsed and Signature Bank followed 48 hours later. Chief among these was what regulators did, or didn’t do, in the three days from the time they each learned of SVB’s looming collapse, on Thursday to Sunday, when they decided that the failures of SVB and Signature Bank posed a systemic risk to the financial system.
“Despite U.S. regulators having clear knowledge of insufficient risk management, it seems the examiners and your supervisors were asleep at the wheel while signs that Silicon Valley Bank was heading towards a collapse were staring them right in the face for many, many months,” Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., said to Federal Reserve Vice Chair Michael Barr.
On Tuesday, bank stocks turned negative following a similar hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. Investors may have been spooked by the three top regulators each saying they favored more stringent rules for banks with more than $100 billion in assets.
Nellie Liang, undersecretary for domestic finance at the Treasury Department, is testifying alongside Gruenberg and Barr before the House committee after appearing Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee.
This is a developing news story, and will be updated throughout the hearing.
[ad_2]
Image and article originally from www.cnbc.com. Read the original article here.