Federal Reserve admits supervisors saw Silicon Valley Bank’s problems and didn’t act fast enough

The Federal Reserve’s independent review of Silicon Valley Bank’s spectacular failure delivered a verdict that reads like a corporate autopsy with a side of institutional self-criticism: the Fed’s own supervisory staff identified vulnerabilities at SVB and simply did not move quickly enough to force the bank to fix them.

The review, led by Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr, found that SVB had 31 open supervisory findings at the time it collapsed on March 10, 2023. That’s roughly three times the average for banks of comparable size.

A bank that tripled in size while regulators watched

SVB’s total assets surged from approximately $71 billion in 2019 to over $211 billion by 2021, a nearly threefold increase in just two years.

Supervisors flagged interest rate risk deficiencies in CAMELS examinations during the 2020, 2021, and 2022 review cycles. Yet formal supervisory action didn’t arrive until November 2022, just a few months before the bank’s collapse.

The $40 billion bank run

On March 9, 2023, depositors withdrew more than $40 billion from the bank in a single day, triggered by a failed capital raising effort that spooked an already nervous client base.

By March 10, the bank was done. The FDIC stepped in to take receivership, and the estimated cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund landed at $16.1 billion.

The Fed points the finger at itself

The review explicitly cited the post-2018 regulatory framework, which loosened oversight requirements for mid-sized banks, as a contributing factor. Under that framework, the Fed adopted what the review characterized as a less aggressive supervisory posture. Examiners were slower to escalate concerns and less inclined to use enforcement tools.

A follow-up review by the Fed’s Office of Inspector General, published in September 2023, reinforced these conclusions. It found that SVB’s transition from regional bank oversight to large-bank oversight was poorly executed, with interest rate risks in the bank’s securities portfolio inadequately examined during the handoff.

What this means for banking regulation

SVB’s collapse has already prompted serious discussion about whether the regulatory rollbacks enacted in 2018, which raised the threshold for enhanced prudential standards from $50 billion to $250 billion in assets, left a dangerous blind spot for fast-growing mid-sized banks.

For investors evaluating bank stocks and the financial sector more broadly, the SVB post-mortem serves as a reminder that supervisory findings are worth monitoring. A bank carrying three times the industry average in unresolved regulatory concerns isn’t a contrarian bet. It’s a warning sign dressed in quarterly filings.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.