Signature Bank

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)

Bloomberg: Tether sells USDT stablecoins to customers through Signature Bank's Signet payment platform

ChainCatcher news, citing informed sources from Bloomberg, reported that Tether instructed crypto clients to send dollars to its Bahamian banking partner, Capital Union Bank Ltd., via Signature's Signet payment platform to pay for its USDT stablecoin. The sources said that while it is unclear when this arrangement began, it had already started before regulators took over Signature Bank last month.Tether stated in an email: "The banks that Tether uses are always able to access multiple banking channels and counterparties." The company's risk management "allows us to identify specific risks and weaknesses that others overlook, ensuring that our entities are not exposed to direct or indirect risks from Signature." Previously, it was reported that U.S. prosecutors had been investigating Signature Bank's dealings with crypto clients before regulators suddenly took over the bank.According to sources, investigators from the Justice Department in Washington and Manhattan are looking into whether Signature took adequate measures to detect potential money laundering by clients, such as carefully scrutinizing account openers and monitoring transactions for signs of criminal activity. The bank and its employees have not been accused of wrongdoing, and the investigation may conclude without further action.It is reported that Capital Union, a boutique bank headquartered in Nassau, Bahamas, lists digital assets as one of its main businesses, alongside lending, wealth management, trading, and execution. The company was founded in 2013, with a net profit of $50.1 million in 2021 and total assets of $1.56 billion. Capital Union and another Bahamian bank, Deltec Bank & Trust Ltd., are responsible for safeguarding Tether's cash reserves, while Cantor Fitzgerald LP is the custodian of the U.S. Treasury securities held by Tether. (Source link)
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovators