The closure of Signature Bank had nothing to do with cryptocurrency, according to New York’s financial regulator. The regulator cited a “significant crisis of confidence in the bank’s leadership” that occurred over the weekend after regulators shuttered Silicon Valley Bank.
The contrasting comments from a New York State Department of Financial Services spokesperson and Signature Bank board member and former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, one of the pioneers of the landmark Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted after the 2008 financial crisis to better insulate the banking system from shocks, has caused many to wonder if regulators are trying to send a message about cryptocurrencies.
“I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message,” Frank told CNBC on Monday. “We became the poster boy because the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals.”
But on Tuesday, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) denied Frank’s claims in a statement, saying that its decision to close Signature Bank on Sunday and appoint the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp as receiver was based on the current status of the bank and its ability to do business in a safe and sound manner on Monday. The FDIC declined to comment. Signature Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The decisions made over the weekend had nothing to do with crypto,” said the NYDFS in a statement. “Signature was a traditional commercial bank that was unable to meet the Department’s safety and soundness standards.”
DFS has been facilitating well-regulated crypto activities for several years, and is a national model for regulating the space,” they said.
The spokesperson added that as withdrawal requests ballooned over the weekend, Signature Bank failed to provide reliable and consistent data.
In response to NYDFS’ statement, Frank said he was surprised the regulator said the decision to close the bank was not related to cryptocurrency.
“I think that was a factor,” he said in an interview. “I’m puzzled and disappointed that they’re trying to make it seem like it wasn’t a factor.”
He added that to his knowledge, bank executives were working to provide data to regulators.
“What we heard from our executives is that the deposit situation had stabilized and they would be getting the capital from the discount window and I continue to be convinced that if we had opened on Monday given the announcements of those two policies, we would have been in a reasonably good shape and certainly functional,” he said. Signature was a commercial bank with private client offices with nine nationalities represented on its staff.
Also Read
- Crypto Analyst Debates: Investing in Bitcoin Won’t Make You Rich Again
- US crypto crackdown spells trouble for EU regulators
- Santiment Warns: 5 Indicators Flashing Bitcoin Turnaround Signals
- Crypto Wallet Maker Ledger Raises $109 Million in Latest Funding Round
- “XRP up 10% on speculation CFTC’s Binance case could impact SEC suit”