Press-Telegram (Long Beach)

Governor's connection to Silicon Valley Bank failure

- Susa■ Shelley Columnist Write Susan@SusanShell­ey. com or follow her on Twitter @ Susan_Shelley

One unnoticed aspect of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank is the change to California law in 2020 that increased political control of statechart­ered financial institutio­ns.

In the chaos of the first year of the pandemic emergency, at a time when the Legislatur­e was working remotely, or not at all, Gov. Gavin Newsom had the idea to change financial regulation in California.

Don't take my word for it. Straight from the horse's mouth is this “background” from the website of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI):

“In an effort to strengthen consumer financial protection­s in California, Governor Gavin Newsom proposed an initiative to modernize and revamp the current Department of Business Oversight (DBO), including an increase in staff and authority, to enhance its regulatory scope and become a national model for consumer protection­s.”

The change occurred with the enactment of Assembly Bill 1864 and Assembly Bill 107, signed into law by the governor in September 2020. The new DFPI retained the powers of the previous agency and added a “consumer outreach team engaging vulnerable population­s,” and “an Office of Financial Technology Innovation that will engage with new industries and consumer advocates to encourage consumer friendly innovation and job creation in California.”

The department was placed under the supervisio­n of a commission­er appointed by the governor and empowered “to bring administra­tive and civil actions, and to prosecute those civil actions before state and federal courts,” as well as “to hold hearings and issue publicatio­ns, results of inquiries and research, and reports that may aid in effectuati­ng the purposes of this law.”

This adds up to a formula for greater political control of financial institutio­ns in California. It means the regulatory terrorism familiar to so many other businesses in the state could now be applied to banks that failed to meet certain goals of “encouragin­g” innovation or “engaging” identified communitie­s.

At the same time, the new laws opened the opportunit­y for some banks to curry favor with politician­s by funding “innovation” that non-political numbercrun­chers had already rejected as a bad bet.

And so was born the venture capital boom in new “innovation” to combat climate change.

“Silicon Valley Bank Collapse Threatens Climate Start-Ups,” headlined The New York Times, reporting that “the bank had relationsh­ips with more than 1,500 companies working on technologi­es aimed at curbing global warming.”

In California, banks could face administra­tive penalties from the regulatory agency run by an appointee of the governor if they fail to meet their obligation to “encourage” innovation and “engage” vulnerable communitie­s.

By coincidenc­e, or maybe not by coincidenc­e, immediatel­y after the DFPI's new regulatory powers became effective on Jan. 1, 2021, Gov. Newsom asked Silicon Valley Bank to donate to the nonprofit California Partners Fund founded by his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

The bank didn't say no. The first $25,000 payment was made on Jan. 8, 2021. Three more payments of $25,000 each followed before the end of the year.

The issue here is that the new law empowered politician­s to pressure regulated financial institutio­ns into making lending decisions that were heavily influenced by factors other than credit-worthiness, technologi­cal feasibilit­y or prospects for success. The other side of that coin is the obvious incentive for politician­s to make sure their appointees use kid gloves, or blinders, when regulating certain financial institutio­ns.

In a March 10 order taking possession of Silicon Valley Bank, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation stated that the commission­er “finds” that despite the bank announcing a $1.8 billion loss on March 8 and desperatel­y seeking to raise more capital, SVB was “in sound financial condition prior to March 9.” That “finding” probably has some legal significan­ce that will become clear when no one is held accountabl­e for anything.

On March 12, in a joint statement, the Treasury, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporatio­n announced a “systemic risk exception” to remove the $250,000 FDIC limit on insurance of bank deposits. So the depositors who held many millions of dollars, uninsured, in their Silicon Valley Bank checking accounts will get all their money back.

Taxpayers, and bank customers who will see higher fees to pay higher charges from the FDIC, will not be so lucky.

 ?? BENJAMIN FANJOY – THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? Anne Wilbur and Jessika Harville enter a Silicon Valley Bank in Palo Alto on Monday. Did Gov. Gavin Newsom's friendly relations with the bank have anything to do with weak oversight and its collapse?
BENJAMIN FANJOY – THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Anne Wilbur and Jessika Harville enter a Silicon Valley Bank in Palo Alto on Monday. Did Gov. Gavin Newsom's friendly relations with the bank have anything to do with weak oversight and its collapse?
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States