Crypto did not cause Signature, Silvergate and SVB collapses

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Benefactor
Messages
14,962
Reaction score
4,808
Points
268
Location
Texas
United-States
A new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) showed that crypto losses did not cause the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, or even Silvergate, but fear of crypto exposure was the driving force behind the bank runs.

The CRS, a non-partisan agency which acts as a trusted resource to inform members of Congress, published ‘The Role of Cryptocurrency in the Failures of Silvergate, Silicon Valley, and Signature Banks’ on Tuesday. The report contradicts the popular narrative that the banks’ failures were caused by significant exposure to FTX and other failed crypto firms, or by losses from their own crypto products, ...


From the report:
...
While the banks appear to have withstood direct exposures to specific crypto firms, some nevertheless experienced significant depletion of deposits as the steady series of failures deepened the crypto market downturn. After reaching an all-time high of around $3 trillion in November 2021, crypto lost more than two-thirds of its market capitalization by December 2022. As digital asset prices fell, centralized crypto platforms and stablecoin issuers experienced redemptions, likely causing them to draw down deposits held at these banks. To meet withdrawal demand, banks sold ostensibly safe securities for losses, affecting their liquidity and—in some cases—their solvency. In the fourth quarter of 2022, Silvergate’s deposits fell by more than half, hastening a drop that began earlier in the year (see Figure 2). Signature’s deposits fell by around 15% over the same period. So in this case, losses were not realized on crypto-related assets, but crypto deposit withdrawals caused banks to sell other assets at a loss.
...


That's just fractional reserve banking at it's finest.
 
Meat of the article,

"The report said that the problems at these banks began as crypto prices fell precipitously throughout 2022. “As digital asset prices fell, centralized crypto platforms and stablecoin issuers experienced redemptions, likely causing them to draw down deposits held at these banks,” they wrote. “To meet withdrawal demand, banks sold ostensibly safe securities for losses, affecting their liquidity and—in some cases—their solvency.”

Silvergate’s deposits fell by more than 50% in Q4 2022, the report noted, while Signature’s deposits fell by approximately 15% during the same period. “So in this case, losses were not realized on crypto-related assets, but crypto deposit withdrawals caused banks to sell other assets at a loss.”

Those "ostensibly safe securites" were bonds, any bonds that go down in value when rates go up someone correct me if i'm wrong.
 
I was looking back at this thread from January:


It was prescient in pointing out that stablecoins might cause a sell off in treasuries, but it missed the boat in realizing that the banks holding unsecured deposits (which were facing enormous redemptions) would be the ones selling them and then going bust.
 
Back
Top Bottom