FDI

The FDIC issued a consent order to Cross River Bank regarding "unsafe or unsound banking practices."

ChainCatcher News, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has issued a consent order to the crypto-friendly Cross River Bank for "unsafe or unsound banking practices." Cross River Bank is a venture capital-backed bank in New Jersey that has business dealings with major crypto companies like Coinbase and Circle.The 34-page consent order states: "The FDIC has considered this matter and determined that the bank engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices due to its failure to establish and maintain internal controls, information systems, and prudent credit underwriting practices, related to compliance with applicable fair lending laws and regulations. The bank neither admits nor denies."A spokesperson for Cross River Bank stated that the order is the result of a "standard review of all aspects of the bank's lending processes" conducted two years ago. "We had already identified areas for improvement prior to the examination, and the examination identified additional areas. Since then, we have actively made significant improvements to fair lending and other initiatives, including investments in technology and personnel. Many improvements are either completed or will be completed in the coming months," the spokesperson said in a statement to The Block. The bank is "committed to working with the fintech community" and describes itself as a "transparent, compliant, fair, and responsible lending model." (source link)

U.S. FDIC: Signature Bank failed due to mismanagement and "contagion effect."

ChainCatcher News: The report from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) indicates that the failure of Signature Bank was due to mismanagement and the "contagion effect" from the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Silvergate Bank. The FDIC stated that Signature Bank heavily relied on uninsured deposits and lacked strong liquidity risk management measures, overall demonstrating poor risk management. Additionally, the bank run triggered by the failures of other banks exacerbated the situation. Furthermore, Signature Bank's services to the crypto industry were also considered a major risk.The FDIC noted that shortly after the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) took over Signature Bank in March, the FDIC began reviewing its oversight of the bank. Although the industry claims that Signature failed specifically due to its services for crypto clients, NYDFS head Adrienne Harris has repeatedly stated that the bank had other issues.Moreover, the Federal Reserve and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released their respective assessments of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, with the Federal Reserve attributing the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank to a series of mismanagement issues, while factors such as interest rate hikes and liquidity risks further worsened the situation. The GAO pointed out that Signature had "reduced its exposure to crypto deposits" in the 12 months prior to its failure. Silicon Valley Bank was affected by rising interest rates, while Signature Bank had exposure in the digital asset sector. These banks failed to adequately manage deposit risks.All three reports highlighted that the lack of action from federal regulators was a contributing factor, stating that banking regulators could have taken action earlier to request more information or otherwise manage the banks and their risks. (source link)
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovators