The Federal Reserve is facing criticism over Silicon Valley Bank\u2019s collapse, with lawmakers and financial regulation experts asking why the regulator failed to catch and stop seemingly obvious risks. That concern is galvanizing a review of how the central bank oversees financial institutions \u2014 one that could end in stricter rules for a range of banks.<\/p>\n
In particular, the episode could result in meaningful regulatory and supervisory changes for institutions \u2014 like Silicon Valley Bank \u2014 that are large but not large enough to be considered globally systemic and thus subject to tougher oversight and rules. Smaller banks face lighter regulations than the largest ones, which go through regular and extensive tests of their financial health and have to more closely police how much easy-to-tap cash they have to serve as a buffer in times of crisis.<\/p>\n
Regulators and lawmakers are focused both on whether a deregulatory push in 2018, during the Trump administration, went too far, and on whether existing rules are sufficient in a changing world.<\/p>\n
While it is too early to predict the outcome, the shock waves that Silicon Valley Bank\u2019s demise sent through the financial system, and the sweeping response the government staged to prevent it from inciting a nationwide bank run, are clearly intensifying the pressure for stronger oversight.<\/p>\n
Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n What happened at Silicon Valley Bank? The failure has accusing fingers pointed at the Fed. And at the central bank, it's kicked off a bout of regulatory soul-searching. <\/p>\n with @FlitterOnFraud<\/a> https:\/\/t.co\/qptaFO0iSO<\/a><\/p>\n — Jeanna Smialek (@jeannasmialek) March 15, 2023<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \n