WEBVTT - Barney Frank on SVB and Signature Bank Collapses (Audio)

0:00:00.000 --> 0:00:00.960
<v Speaker 1>I want to bring it back to one of the

0:00:01.000 --> 0:00:04.400
<v Speaker 1>main stories today, which of course is a Signature bank

0:00:04.519 --> 0:00:07.000
<v Speaker 1>getting shut down from the fallout of Silicon Valley Brank.

0:00:07.000 --> 0:00:08.399
<v Speaker 1>I want to bring back our former guests that we

0:00:08.400 --> 0:00:10.879
<v Speaker 1>were just talking about, Barney Frank, the co sponsor of

0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:13.440
<v Speaker 1>the Dodd Frank Act as well as a board member

0:00:13.760 --> 0:00:16.280
<v Speaker 1>of Signature Bank. Barney think he was always for joining

0:00:16.320 --> 0:00:19.120
<v Speaker 1>us on the radio today. Let's start with a simple question.

0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:23.919
<v Speaker 1>What happened? Well, one former board member that board was

0:00:23.960 --> 0:00:27.760
<v Speaker 1>dissolved by the FDIC. What happened was the fallout? How

0:00:27.800 --> 0:00:31.360
<v Speaker 1>would you say? I think from Silicon Valley Bank, we

0:00:31.520 --> 0:00:36.920
<v Speaker 1>got hit although we Signature were in good shape. In fact,

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:42.360
<v Speaker 1>given what the FED and the FDIC announced today, if

0:00:42.400 --> 0:00:44.879
<v Speaker 1>that been announced on Friday, we would have had no

0:00:45.040 --> 0:00:48.800
<v Speaker 1>problem at all. We began to lose deposits on Friday

0:00:49.920 --> 0:00:53.000
<v Speaker 1>out of reaction to what happened to Silicon Valley. What

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:55.920
<v Speaker 1>you also had was it wasn't because Silicon Valley. It

0:00:56.120 --> 0:01:00.880
<v Speaker 1>was a punishment for anybody involved with clipped. This is

0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:03.880
<v Speaker 1>a and I think in fact what happened was we

0:01:04.360 --> 0:01:06.800
<v Speaker 1>had gotten into crypto allow in a way that no

0:01:06.840 --> 0:01:11.399
<v Speaker 1>way put us to risk We facilitated our customers who

0:01:11.400 --> 0:01:14.280
<v Speaker 1>wanted to deal with each other crypto, but we would

0:01:14.319 --> 0:01:16.920
<v Speaker 1>not it as someone that was doing crypto, as I said,

0:01:17.120 --> 0:01:19.400
<v Speaker 1>not in a way that was risky to us. And

0:01:19.440 --> 0:01:24.319
<v Speaker 1>there was this fleeing of banks that we're seeing to

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:27.040
<v Speaker 1>a crypto now. It was a liquidity issue, not a

0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:31.600
<v Speaker 1>soaleignty issue, and we had by Sunday actually gotten back

0:01:31.600 --> 0:01:34.000
<v Speaker 1>to a point where we had to liquidity what I

0:01:34.040 --> 0:01:37.520
<v Speaker 1>believe the regulators wanted to send a message that crypto

0:01:37.720 --> 0:01:41.280
<v Speaker 1>is toxic, frankly, and they wanted to tell everybody to

0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:44.000
<v Speaker 1>get as far away from crypto as they could. When

0:01:44.000 --> 0:01:47.560
<v Speaker 1>we were signaled out to be the poster child for

0:01:47.600 --> 0:01:51.120
<v Speaker 1>that message, we Burney, your CEO, Joe to Paolo has

0:01:51.120 --> 0:01:52.880
<v Speaker 1>actually said the same thing you just said, which is

0:01:52.880 --> 0:01:56.720
<v Speaker 1>the exposure was responsibly handled. It was limited exposure. We're

0:01:56.760 --> 0:01:59.120
<v Speaker 1>Silicon Valley Bank, for example, had a lot more exposure

0:01:59.160 --> 0:02:02.400
<v Speaker 1>to tech start up to be So, how did crypto

0:02:02.520 --> 0:02:05.400
<v Speaker 1>lead to the shutdown of signature exactly? Walk us through

0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:09.320
<v Speaker 1>the details? So two ways. First of all, depositors and

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:13.040
<v Speaker 1>like other banks, uh they cater to businesses as we do.

0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:16.679
<v Speaker 1>We didn't care to high tech. We catered to largely

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:21.720
<v Speaker 1>commercial lenders. Were a big housing developer, which is one

0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:25.919
<v Speaker 1>of the things I liked about our role. Um what so,

0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:29.239
<v Speaker 1>we had a lot of large depositors who were uninsured,

0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:34.040
<v Speaker 1>and they panicked knowing that we were involved with crypto,

0:02:34.080 --> 0:02:36.680
<v Speaker 1>and we explained to them, but it was crypto in

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:40.160
<v Speaker 1>a very responsible way that didn't expose us. They didn't

0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:41.600
<v Speaker 1>want to hear it. They just wanted to go to

0:02:42.000 --> 0:02:45.440
<v Speaker 1>JP Morgan, a Bank of America, just in case. So

0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:50.200
<v Speaker 1>what the way Crypto heard us was the fact that

0:02:50.280 --> 0:02:52.720
<v Speaker 1>we are involved with crypto, although as I said, in

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:56.880
<v Speaker 1>a way different than s web uh and have large

0:02:57.040 --> 0:03:02.359
<v Speaker 1>uninsured depositors. They panicked and fled. What the FED did

0:03:02.440 --> 0:03:05.320
<v Speaker 1>now by announcing they would back up or what I

0:03:05.400 --> 0:03:08.480
<v Speaker 1>see that they'd back up on each other depositors and

0:03:08.600 --> 0:03:11.840
<v Speaker 1>make a liquidity facility open at the FED. That would

0:03:11.840 --> 0:03:14.160
<v Speaker 1>have kept us from having a pop. And as I said,

0:03:14.200 --> 0:03:19.840
<v Speaker 1>I think the regulators, knowing that we were involved with crypto,

0:03:19.960 --> 0:03:23.640
<v Speaker 1>even though in a totally different way, wanted to send

0:03:23.639 --> 0:03:25.839
<v Speaker 1>a message to get people away from crypto. I think

0:03:26.080 --> 0:03:28.639
<v Speaker 1>some of the regulators, Uh, we're a little nervous that

0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:32.919
<v Speaker 1>they've been a little to accommodating the crypto and particularly

0:03:33.000 --> 0:03:37.600
<v Speaker 1>after FTX, which which is at Parney. You're talking about

0:03:38.440 --> 0:03:39.720
<v Speaker 1>let me just let me just hop in here. You're

0:03:39.720 --> 0:03:44.640
<v Speaker 1>talking about mostly uninsured deposits. Roughly nine deposits for signature

0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:47.720
<v Speaker 1>were uninsured. Look, you're a co sponsor of a of

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:50.720
<v Speaker 1>the DoD FRAMEK Act, which is known for regulation. Why

0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:55.640
<v Speaker 1>didn't why wasn't this addressed earlier? Because we were defeated.

0:03:55.720 --> 0:04:00.520
<v Speaker 1>I it's a good point. I wanted to extend deposit

0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:05.240
<v Speaker 1>insurance for larger businesses. We have a payroll issue. There

0:04:05.280 --> 0:04:08.640
<v Speaker 1>had been a temporary extension of that two thousand and eight,

0:04:09.200 --> 0:04:11.720
<v Speaker 1>and I pushed for it in a House version of

0:04:11.760 --> 0:04:15.680
<v Speaker 1>the bill. We extended it, but we ran into political opposition,

0:04:16.160 --> 0:04:19.800
<v Speaker 1>first from the large banks, which frankly don't want people

0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:23.679
<v Speaker 1>to have that reassurance because that makes it likely for people,

0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:26.680
<v Speaker 1>as happened now, to pull out of smaller banks to

0:04:26.760 --> 0:04:29.240
<v Speaker 1>go to be of A or J people of the chase.

0:04:29.600 --> 0:04:33.320
<v Speaker 1>We had Republican opposition who thought, well, this is interference

0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:35.600
<v Speaker 1>with the economy. We had some people on the left

0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:39.480
<v Speaker 1>who said, oh, don't insure the very rich. Although extending

0:04:39.920 --> 0:04:44.000
<v Speaker 1>to business accounts that guarantee protects working people because it

0:04:44.000 --> 0:04:47.040
<v Speaker 1>protects payroll. So the answer is, that's a good question.

0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:50.080
<v Speaker 1>I tried to get it extended, and I hope that

0:04:50.160 --> 0:04:54.160
<v Speaker 1>what will happen now is people having learned the backing

0:04:54.240 --> 0:04:57.800
<v Speaker 1>of the uninsured, raising the insurance level will not be

0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 1>a one off for this crisis, but that former colleagues

0:05:00.880 --> 0:05:06.360
<v Speaker 1>will take steps to extend it, particularly for payroll accounts. Well,

0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:09.039
<v Speaker 1>should there be any limit? I mean shouldn't we? The

0:05:09.080 --> 0:05:12.120
<v Speaker 1>FED has essentially come out now with its statement and

0:05:13.000 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 1>UM assured depositors across the country that there's no more limit,

0:05:18.400 --> 0:05:24.720
<v Speaker 1>that every every is that okay necessary, that's a necessary

0:05:24.800 --> 0:05:27.720
<v Speaker 1>temporary America until they work out. And what I think

0:05:27.720 --> 0:05:29.600
<v Speaker 1>you need to do is to raise the limit. First

0:05:29.600 --> 0:05:32.320
<v Speaker 1>of all, a business account. We're not talking about rich

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:35.680
<v Speaker 1>individual's pocket money. We're talking about because what do you

0:05:35.680 --> 0:05:37.159
<v Speaker 1>do if you're a business and you have to have

0:05:37.240 --> 0:05:40.760
<v Speaker 1>me to payroll that's in the in the hundreds of

0:05:40.800 --> 0:05:43.719
<v Speaker 1>thousands of millions. I would say, this is all the

0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:45.240
<v Speaker 1>top of my head. I'm not there to do the

0:05:45.240 --> 0:05:47.880
<v Speaker 1>research now that you would want to say that an

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:50.919
<v Speaker 1>amount that would get you through at least one payroll

0:05:51.000 --> 0:05:54.680
<v Speaker 1>period and maybe two so you could then make other arrangements.

0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:57.120
<v Speaker 1>But why why should there be any limit? Nan? Why

0:05:57.160 --> 0:06:00.159
<v Speaker 1>should Why does America have the thousands of banks? So

0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:02.600
<v Speaker 1>why not just have you know, like five or ten

0:06:02.680 --> 0:06:05.479
<v Speaker 1>big institutions so that we don't have to have these

0:06:05.520 --> 0:06:09.159
<v Speaker 1>problems all the time. Here's the reason. If you're talking

0:06:09.200 --> 0:06:12.480
<v Speaker 1>about a personal account of a million dollars, five banks

0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 1>would do it. What if you're a business that has

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:17.800
<v Speaker 1>a payroll in the tens of millions, how many banks

0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:20.160
<v Speaker 1>do you have to do? It would be very inefficient

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:23.160
<v Speaker 1>to have them have to have fifty banks. And why

0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:26.479
<v Speaker 1>do it? It's to protect not the banks, but to

0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:29.560
<v Speaker 1>protect working people. That's why there was a lot of

0:06:29.600 --> 0:06:32.839
<v Speaker 1>pressure from I get that. I just don't understand why

0:06:32.839 --> 0:06:34.440
<v Speaker 1>there should be a limit any I guess you could

0:06:34.480 --> 0:06:37.000
<v Speaker 1>vilify rich people. Oh he has a million dollars in

0:06:37.000 --> 0:06:39.359
<v Speaker 1>that bank account, but who cares? Like, why why should

0:06:39.360 --> 0:06:44.240
<v Speaker 1>there be any limit? Why not ensure all deposits because

0:06:45.040 --> 0:06:48.560
<v Speaker 1>there is a potential cost to the federal government, There

0:06:48.680 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>is a potential moral that there's some too safety to

0:06:54.640 --> 0:06:57.279
<v Speaker 1>having people check with that bank. You don't want banks

0:06:57.279 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 1>that are irresponsible to have a restricted limit. I would

0:07:03.320 --> 0:07:06.400
<v Speaker 1>make it pretty high. And I think the need again

0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:10.120
<v Speaker 1>is and I'm not vilifying rich people. What I'm saying

0:07:10.240 --> 0:07:13.480
<v Speaker 1>is that no policy need to protect millions of dollars

0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:17.440
<v Speaker 1>in individual pocketation. There is a policy need to protect

0:07:17.520 --> 0:07:20.520
<v Speaker 1>an institution that has payroll and not make them go

0:07:20.600 --> 0:07:23.040
<v Speaker 1>to ten or twenty or forty banks, and to let

0:07:23.080 --> 0:07:25.720
<v Speaker 1>them put the bank to have a bank which is

0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:29.520
<v Speaker 1>sufficient to be stepping through a month's payroll. And that's

0:07:29.600 --> 0:07:32.200
<v Speaker 1>the specifics I would work for. So what we tried

0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:34.280
<v Speaker 1>to do in the House in two thousand and eight,

0:07:34.320 --> 0:07:36.160
<v Speaker 1>we didn't have the votes to do it in the Senate.

0:07:36.440 --> 0:07:39.080
<v Speaker 1>But I hope now people have learned frankly that we

0:07:39.120 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 1>were writing and they will do that. Barney and New

0:07:41.760 --> 0:07:44.800
<v Speaker 1>York Governor Kathy Hokell said the takeover of Signature Bank

0:07:44.880 --> 0:07:48.560
<v Speaker 1>by federal regulators on Sunday, quote was not a bailout.

0:07:48.800 --> 0:07:52.679
<v Speaker 1>Do you agree who said it wasn't? New York Governor

0:07:52.720 --> 0:07:56.360
<v Speaker 1>Kathy Hukel, Yeah, Well, I don't see how it's a bailout.

0:07:57.440 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 1>What's going to happen is, in fact, I don't think

0:08:00.240 --> 0:08:04.160
<v Speaker 1>bailed out the depositor Earth. Yeah, but not just a

0:08:04.200 --> 0:08:08.560
<v Speaker 1>Signature bank. Every depositive was Yeah, I'm sorry, Can I

0:08:08.600 --> 0:08:12.720
<v Speaker 1>finish a sentence? Please? Please? The fact is nothing was

0:08:12.760 --> 0:08:16.040
<v Speaker 1>done with regard to depositors at Signature Bank different than

0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:18.720
<v Speaker 1>any other bank in America. So no, if it was

0:08:18.760 --> 0:08:22.120
<v Speaker 1>a bare office signor it was a badhoff for everybody. Secondly,

0:08:22.200 --> 0:08:24.840
<v Speaker 1>and I think for good policy reasons, you don't want

0:08:24.840 --> 0:08:30.240
<v Speaker 1>to have people's payrolls going on man and hurting innocent

0:08:30.240 --> 0:08:34.640
<v Speaker 1>people and the economy. Beyond that, what's going to happen

0:08:34.800 --> 0:08:37.040
<v Speaker 1>is that the FDIC is going to sell the bank.

0:08:37.120 --> 0:08:39.360
<v Speaker 1>I predict that they're going to get a pretty good

0:08:39.360 --> 0:08:44.120
<v Speaker 1>place for it. Confirming that there was no reason endemic

0:08:44.200 --> 0:08:46.840
<v Speaker 1>to the bank or intrinsic to the bank to shut

0:08:46.840 --> 0:08:48.480
<v Speaker 1>it down, I think they were just trying to send

0:08:48.920 --> 0:08:54.560
<v Speaker 1>an anti crypto message. But they as far as your

0:08:54.600 --> 0:08:58.439
<v Speaker 1>shareholders are concern, nobody's going to get any money other

0:08:58.559 --> 0:09:01.400
<v Speaker 1>than what's put in by a say we tax pay

0:09:01.440 --> 0:09:07.400
<v Speaker 1>of money, and anyway we'll be repaying shareholders. Congressman, I

0:09:07.400 --> 0:09:09.640
<v Speaker 1>want to ask you a couple questions about what's left

0:09:09.720 --> 0:09:12.320
<v Speaker 1>of Signature Bank as well. Let's start with their digital payments.

0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:14.840
<v Speaker 1>On one second, I'm going to hang on one second,

0:09:15.280 --> 0:09:19.800
<v Speaker 1>so the train announcement stop station. Of course we are

0:09:19.840 --> 0:09:22.200
<v Speaker 1>happy to wait for that, but of course there's going

0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:24.480
<v Speaker 1>to be a lot of more headlines as well. And

0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:26.040
<v Speaker 1>then the time we have left with you, Congressman, I

0:09:26.080 --> 0:09:28.600
<v Speaker 1>want to ask you about the digital payments platform is Signette?

0:09:28.840 --> 0:09:32.640
<v Speaker 1>Is it still online? Yes? I said, go ahead. Is

0:09:33.400 --> 0:09:36.920
<v Speaker 1>Signette still online? The digital payments platform associated with Signature Bank?

0:09:37.960 --> 0:09:42.840
<v Speaker 1>What platform Signette? I'm sorry I didn't hear the question.

0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:45.080
<v Speaker 1>No worries. Let's move on to the next one. You're

0:09:45.160 --> 0:09:48.560
<v Speaker 1>talking about the big banks and simply the regulation required

0:09:48.679 --> 0:09:51.640
<v Speaker 1>for them. Who benefits from what you're seeing on the

0:09:51.720 --> 0:09:56.040
<v Speaker 1>FDIC front and the FED front. Who benefits? Oh, who

0:09:56.160 --> 0:10:02.959
<v Speaker 1>benefits from the FDIC Our work people who have to

0:10:03.080 --> 0:10:07.400
<v Speaker 1>have have to be paid. Sure, but in terms of

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:09.959
<v Speaker 1>the shutdown of Signature Bank, where did those funds go?

0:10:12.040 --> 0:10:15.679
<v Speaker 1>I'm sorry you actually meet different questions you asked me.

0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:19.840
<v Speaker 1>I thought about who benefits in the first place, where

0:10:19.840 --> 0:10:22.679
<v Speaker 1>the gudget depositors. Nothing is being done at Signature that

0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:25.280
<v Speaker 1>isn't being done everywhere else, and the purposes so that

0:10:25.360 --> 0:10:28.439
<v Speaker 1>people can meet pay rolls. And I'm along in favor

0:10:28.440 --> 0:10:31.600
<v Speaker 1>of that. I know that's been out of the demand.

0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:37.080
<v Speaker 1>As far as funds are concerned, other than yeah, there'll

0:10:37.120 --> 0:10:40.160
<v Speaker 1>be funds that will bail out the deposits. The FDIC

0:10:40.360 --> 0:10:43.600
<v Speaker 1>has announced, and again not differently for signature than any

0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:47.000
<v Speaker 1>other bank, that there will necessarily be an assessment on

0:10:47.120 --> 0:10:51.840
<v Speaker 1>other banks to build up the FDIC funds, as those

0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:55.800
<v Speaker 1>payments come out of not general tax revenues, but FDIC

0:10:56.040 --> 0:11:00.760
<v Speaker 1>funds that are generated by fees paid by banks. As

0:11:00.840 --> 0:11:06.800
<v Speaker 1>far as shareholders are concerned, any recompanies, any conversation to

0:11:07.000 --> 0:11:11.679
<v Speaker 1>shareholders will come from the postseeds when the FDIC sell

0:11:11.840 --> 0:11:16.720
<v Speaker 1>signature to some other entity and where those gos. That'll

0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:21.280
<v Speaker 1>be enough. Hey, Barney Crity and I were initially discussing

0:11:21.960 --> 0:11:27.480
<v Speaker 1>your legislation this morning because it turns out that m

0:11:28.760 --> 0:11:33.319
<v Speaker 1>SVB would have been under the scrutiny of regulators had

0:11:33.360 --> 0:11:37.439
<v Speaker 1>it not been for the twenty eighteen partial repeal or

0:11:37.520 --> 0:11:41.240
<v Speaker 1>exemption of banks holding less than one hundred billion dollars

0:11:41.280 --> 0:11:44.800
<v Speaker 1>in assets from scrutiny right away and then one two

0:11:44.840 --> 0:11:47.480
<v Speaker 1>hundred and fifty billion from scrutiny over the next year

0:11:47.520 --> 0:11:51.079
<v Speaker 1>and a half exemption from Dodd Frank. Do you think

0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:53.920
<v Speaker 1>that that's going to be turned back around. Are these

0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:56.920
<v Speaker 1>banks Probably not. Here's a response to that. It was

0:11:57.000 --> 0:12:00.679
<v Speaker 1>not an exemption from regulation. It was an exemption from

0:12:00.800 --> 0:12:05.400
<v Speaker 1>a particularly stricter regulation, which still applies to the larger banks.

0:12:05.679 --> 0:12:08.720
<v Speaker 1>I will tell you that signature was in that category

0:12:08.760 --> 0:12:12.520
<v Speaker 1>of banks that got not the strictest regulation, but there

0:12:12.640 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 1>was still serious regulation. And I will tell you that

0:12:15.160 --> 0:12:18.160
<v Speaker 1>during that period, since two thousand eighteen, the regulators were

0:12:18.320 --> 0:12:23.319
<v Speaker 1>very involved with signature. So no, I don't think. I

0:12:23.440 --> 0:12:27.680
<v Speaker 1>think the problem was Frankly, digital as a new element

0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:32.400
<v Speaker 1>in the system, and there was regulation or got in digital.

0:12:33.960 --> 0:12:37.040
<v Speaker 1>I think what happened, Frankie was with ft apps that

0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:40.400
<v Speaker 1>you scared people so much in digital that you got

0:12:40.480 --> 0:12:43.800
<v Speaker 1>this deposit runs that weren't anticipated. But it wasn't a

0:12:43.880 --> 0:12:47.160
<v Speaker 1>lack of regulation. The regulators had the power. They did

0:12:47.240 --> 0:12:51.880
<v Speaker 1>not have the same strictness that they had, say with

0:12:52.559 --> 0:12:55.040
<v Speaker 1>the Wells Fargo a city, But it was not a

0:12:55.120 --> 0:12:59.360
<v Speaker 1>case of removing regulation. The banks were still subject to regulation.

0:12:59.440 --> 0:13:01.120
<v Speaker 1>And I can tell you it was a Rodger signature.

0:13:01.640 --> 0:13:05.760
<v Speaker 1>It was pretty it was pretty serious regulation even after

0:13:05.840 --> 0:13:08.679
<v Speaker 1>that bill pass. The reason I ask is just that

0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:12.040
<v Speaker 1>President Biden held a press conference this morning in which

0:13:12.120 --> 0:13:15.640
<v Speaker 1>He said that he would ask Congress and banking regulators

0:13:15.679 --> 0:13:18.920
<v Speaker 1>to strengthen the rules for banks to make it less

0:13:19.000 --> 0:13:23.120
<v Speaker 1>likely that this kind of failure would happen. Do you

0:13:23.320 --> 0:13:27.920
<v Speaker 1>see that as necessary with your experience? And yes, I

0:13:28.720 --> 0:13:31.640
<v Speaker 1>don't see it as necessary. Remember, this is not a

0:13:31.760 --> 0:13:35.120
<v Speaker 1>widespread set of failures, in part becards to the rules

0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:38.280
<v Speaker 1>we did put in place so that even banks that

0:13:38.440 --> 0:13:43.679
<v Speaker 1>were getting hit with deposit bungee still solvent because they

0:13:43.720 --> 0:13:47.200
<v Speaker 1>were better capitalized thanks to the legislation, and because they

0:13:47.240 --> 0:13:49.839
<v Speaker 1>were not allowed to get involved thanks to the vocal

0:13:49.960 --> 0:13:54.760
<v Speaker 1>rule and extensively whisky underplunded delivatives. I think there were

0:13:54.800 --> 0:13:58.079
<v Speaker 1>ways of regulations should be tightened. Yes, So I don't

0:13:58.120 --> 0:14:01.240
<v Speaker 1>think it's you know, I wouldn't say necessary, but I

0:14:01.280 --> 0:14:03.800
<v Speaker 1>think it would be very beneficial to tighten them in

0:14:03.920 --> 0:14:09.199
<v Speaker 1>some ways. Congressmen at signature banks specifically, when did the

0:14:09.280 --> 0:14:13.080
<v Speaker 1>bank know that the federal government was very concerned about

0:14:13.120 --> 0:14:14.880
<v Speaker 1>it and would in fact take it over today? We

0:14:15.120 --> 0:14:18.760
<v Speaker 1>heard about it on over the weekend. What happened was

0:14:18.840 --> 0:14:22.680
<v Speaker 1>on Friday things were okay, and then on Friday afternoon

0:14:23.920 --> 0:14:28.000
<v Speaker 1>we got hit with a billions and billions of dollars

0:14:28.560 --> 0:14:33.040
<v Speaker 1>in with all the deposits. Because we are business oriented

0:14:33.120 --> 0:14:38.600
<v Speaker 1>and a lot to developers, property owners, housing people, we

0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:44.560
<v Speaker 1>have large depositors disproportionally to say the average bank, and

0:14:45.920 --> 0:14:49.920
<v Speaker 1>we began to get these deposit outflows on Friday, began

0:14:50.040 --> 0:14:52.560
<v Speaker 1>dealing with them. I believe by Sunday we had resolved

0:14:52.600 --> 0:14:56.320
<v Speaker 1>that finding what capital and the deposit out we stopped.

0:14:57.240 --> 0:15:01.320
<v Speaker 1>I believe that the regulators stepped in even after we

0:15:01.480 --> 0:15:06.080
<v Speaker 1>had managed to stabilize that because of the determination to

0:15:06.960 --> 0:15:10.680
<v Speaker 1>get people to move away from from crypto, and we

0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:15.160
<v Speaker 1>were a post a child for that decision. Barney, was

0:15:15.240 --> 0:15:19.600
<v Speaker 1>there any wrongdoing a Signature break, any fraud anyone? Any

0:15:19.640 --> 0:15:24.800
<v Speaker 1>fraud any I'm sorry I say any wrongdoing. Did anything

0:15:25.160 --> 0:15:29.320
<v Speaker 1>wrong happen at Signature Bank? In your opinion? Anything wrong?

0:15:29.520 --> 0:15:34.960
<v Speaker 1>Did you say? Yes? I know, I don't think if

0:15:35.000 --> 0:15:39.120
<v Speaker 1>there hadn't been that run on deposits, um you wouldn't

0:15:39.120 --> 0:15:41.800
<v Speaker 1>have had the publem And by the way, I just

0:15:41.960 --> 0:15:46.040
<v Speaker 1>learned this morning the FDIC has removed the Chamans out

0:15:46.120 --> 0:15:51.640
<v Speaker 1>the board and removed the CEO and advice chair, but

0:15:51.760 --> 0:15:54.080
<v Speaker 1>as otherwise kept all the people in place, including the

0:15:54.120 --> 0:15:57.000
<v Speaker 1>people who run the bank. And I think you'll see

0:15:57.080 --> 0:16:00.920
<v Speaker 1>when they when the sale comes and it's a fundamentally

0:16:01.000 --> 0:16:03.960
<v Speaker 1>sound bank. And no, they have not pointed to any

0:16:04.880 --> 0:16:13.120
<v Speaker 1>specific pattern of longdoing or incompetence. It was, as I said,

0:16:13.160 --> 0:16:20.000
<v Speaker 1>the run spurred by the combination fd X s BB,

0:16:20.160 --> 0:16:23.600
<v Speaker 1>and that's wept us. All right. Congressman, thank you so

0:16:23.760 --> 0:16:25.480
<v Speaker 1>much for your time. We really appreciate. We're gonna let

0:16:25.480 --> 0:16:28.280
<v Speaker 1>you go and let you get your train. Congressman Barney Frank,

0:16:28.360 --> 0:16:32.080
<v Speaker 1>former representative for the US House of Representatives for the

0:16:32.240 --> 0:16:33.720
<v Speaker 1>state of Massachusetts,