SVB

[Seran]

Even if the CRO had been hired 9 months previous, without the FDIC focus on those types of risks, it wouldn't have been sufficient time to stand up more than just the minimum viable products in Operational, Compliance, IT, and Third Party Risk management, at an absolute maximum.
In the marketplace, there's been a shortage in the Chief Risk Officer space for approximately 5 years in the financial markets. The likelihood of qualified applicants applying to the role is very low. It took my current small/mid sized bank 3 years of searching before hiring someone qualified (also not our first pick) so that our General Counsel could return from being the de facto head of Risk to going back to managing the Legal team.

It still boils down to a company who failed due to a bad business model, a lack of liquidity, and lax the oversight due to exemptions it was granted by a change in the federal regulation, and an oversight exemption it applied for and granted. The work ideology nonsense is dog whistling.

[Seran]

This is hilarious. The company who had more than sixteen billion in deposits paid out by the FDIC fund is now suing to have some of it's funds held in receivership. The FDIC became their biggest creditor by guaranteeing deposits and so rightfully any funds that were seized are due to the federal government as a priority secured creditor. This bank is ran by a bunch of crypto loving crooks.

SVB Financial sues FDIC to recover $1.93 bln seized in bank rescue

July 10 (Reuters) - Bankrupt SVB Financial Group has sued the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) to recover the $1.93 billion that the regulator seized while it took over Silicon Valley Bank in March, a filing in a bankruptcy court on Sunday showed.

The group said inability to access the funds was affecting its reorganization as the money should be generating more than $100 million in annual interest. Without that, it might have to seek costly and uncertain "debtor-in-possession" financing.

The FDIC and the bank (SIVBQ.PK) are embroiled in a dispute over the regulator's effort to recoup the cost of rescuing Silicon Valley Bank.

The lender collapsed in March after a deposit flight that triggered the worst U.S. banking crisis in 15 years and led to the failure of two other regional banks.

The regulator guaranteed all deposits of Silicon Valley Bank and later brokered a deal for regional lender First Citizens BancShares (FCNCA.O) to buy the failed bank.

The complaint alleged that the FDIC induced SVB Financial to keep its cash at the failed bank, only to later seize it.

The FDIC guaranteed "all" deposits to prevent a run on the bank, but later carved out SVB Financial's own funds from that guarantee, the complaint said.

SVB Financial filed for bankruptcy protection and last month agreed to sell its investment banking unit to a group led by the chief executive of the business. It is still exploring options for its venture capital and credit investment arm.

The FDIC has said that Silicon Valley Bank's failure drained its insurance fund by $16 billion and it is legally able to hold the seized funds while it determines SVB Financial's share of the rescue costs.

While the FDIC asserted it has claims against the company to justify its refusal to pay, it has not identified any of them "despite having numerous opportunities," SVB Financial alleged.

The FDIC declined to comment.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/svb-fi...ln-2023-07-10/