Talk:Silicon Valley Bank

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Silicon Valley Bank article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bank run or shutdown

The leade is saying a bankrun but the body says FDIC shut it down. Which is it? 131.193.101.85 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both. There was a bank run, and the FDIC subsequently shut them down.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the past tense

The article refers to the bank in the past tense. This seems incorrect. It reportedly suffered a run and has been shut down by the FDIC, but it still exists. I'm not expert, but I understand that it will likely be taken over by new management soon and resume some operations. It may eventually be run down and/or liquidated, but even if that does eventually happen, it hasn't happened yet. The bank exists at this point. "Is" is appropriate. "Was" isn't. The Peanut Gallery (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For example, CNBC is reporting that: "The FDIC said in the announcement that insured depositors will have access to their deposits no later than Monday morning. SVB’s branch offices will also reopen at that time, under the control of the regulator."

I concede that it is a bit murky at the moment with many headlines saying that the regulators "closed" it but also say "seized control". So I'm not making the change myself, just noting that it is odd to say "was" just now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FDIC transferred the deposits to a new bank where depositors will have access to their money. FDIC will retain SVB's assets for later disposition. FDIC's Statement. P37307 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was only the insured deposits that were transferred to the new bank IlkkaP (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also conflating the (failed) bank with its holding company, which has a few other subsidiaries, such as SVB Securities. The holding company was delisted, but I'm unsure if these sister companies were also seized by FDIC since they weren't regulated by FDIC or DFPI to begin with. (We'll also need to keep an eye on Silicon Valley Bank (Q17112054), which editors have already tried merging with SVB Financial Group (Q111839764).) Minh Nguyễn ^💬 22:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur on this point. The failed bank and the holding company are different institutions. Nb further information on the holding company structure can be found in the FFIEC Nat'l Info Center under the tab "Organization Hierarchy" (use the "Down from unique top tier institution" option). Ifly6 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On March 10, 2023, SVB Financial Group’s (the “Company”) wholly owned subsidiary, Silicon Valley Bank (the “Bank”) was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as receiver. The Company is no longer the parent company of the Bank. IlkkaP (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those news articles have a misunderstanding of the way FDIC resolutions work. When a charter is revoked, the whole institution is sent into receivership with the purpose of "winding up the affairs of a bank". 12 USC 1813(j). The DINB (deposit insurance national bank) is a new successor institution. 12 USC s 1821(m). See generally Shibut, Lynn (2017). "Bank Resolutions and Receiverships" (PDF). Crisis and Response. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. p. 177. These are not normal bankruptcies where an institution can go into Chapter 11 and continue operating. Ifly6 (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates of uninsured deposits are unreliable

It takes time for the FDIC to determine the quantity of uninsured deposits that were actually affected. Almost all of the present reports are attempting to assess uninsured deposits using call report variables: RCON5597 (DEPUNA) being the most important with various combinations of the total deposits RCONF236 (DEPBEFEX), RCONF237 (DEPALLEX), RCON2200 (DEP), etc. These were all reported as of 31 December 2022. They are all also estimates.

The actual amount of uninsured deposits is currently being determined by FDIC staff based on the records at the bank and application of the US' complex deposit insurance ownership category rules. Moreover, the underlying variables will have changed considerably since December, especially as panicked uninsured depositors are preferentially the first to flee.^[1] I would urge editors to qualify their statements about the estimates of uninsured deposits to be consistent with these reporting delays and uncertainty rather than taking them at face value. Ifly6 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bank and auditors are producing that report as of close Friday night, so SAT AM numbers are more than likely very accurate whispers. With NDAs of everyone involved you are not going to get accurate reporting you seek for better part of half a year. Those numbers can be leaked and most likely are leaked to the press by the government. Most of the inner workings people and technology of the bank will be running for the next 3 - 6 weeks under government ownership sucking every data source out of the bank. Another set of smartest people in the room. 2601:248:C000:3F:6CB5:C1DB:DBAF:A9D6 (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Iyer, Rajkamal; et al. (2016). "A tale of two runs: depositor responses to bank solvency risk". Journal of Finance. 71 (6): 2687–2726. doi:10.1111/jofi.12424.

FDIC as parent

I removed the FDIC as a "parent" in the infobox because, as receiver, the FDIC is not a parent entity; it's an agent appointed by the government to do things in the interests of creditors. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SVB Group is no longer parent either IlkkaP (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IlkkaP: The holding company was the parent of the bank while the latter existed. The infobox pertains to the bank's historical identity as SVB; DINB isn't the main subject of this article. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "offices in 13 countries and regions" mean?

What's a "region" intended to mean here? How many countries? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barefoot through the chollas: I just restored a more specific list of places where the bank did business. I'm guessing "regions" refers to the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody revert your edit? At present the text still presents the uninformative puzzling "SVB operated from offices in 13 countries and regions". Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barefoot through the chollas: It's down in the "Facilities" section. It did get reverted at one point, but it's there again. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 22:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Iyer, Rajkamal; et al. (2016). "A tale of two runs: depositor responses to bank solvency risk". Journal of Finance. 71 (6): 2687–2726. doi:10.1111/jofi.12424.

[1]