ReportWire

Tag: iab-business banking & finance

  • FDIC sells most of failed Signature Bank to Flagstar | CNN Business

    FDIC sells most of failed Signature Bank to Flagstar | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    A week after Signature Bank failed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said it has sold most of its deposits to Flagstar Bank, a subsidiary of New York Community Bank.

    On Monday, Signature Bank’s 40 branches will begin operating as Flagstar Bank. Signature customers won’t need to make any changes to do their banking Monday.

    New York Community Bank bought substantially all of Signature’s deposits and a total of $38.4 billion worth of the company’s assets. That includes $12.9 billion of Signature’s loans, which New York Community Bank purchased at a steep discount -— it paid just $2.7 billion for them. New York Community Bank also paid the FDIC stock that could be worth up to $300 million.

    At the end of last year, Signature had more than $110 billion worth of assets, including $88.6 billion of deposits, showing how the run against the bank two weeks ago led to a massive decline in deposits.

    Not included in the transaction is about $60 billion in other assets, which will remain in the FDIC’s receivership. It also doesn’t include $4 billion in deposits from Signature’s digital bank business.

    As the banking crisis spreads, banks have grown increasingly wary of taking on risk. That’s likely why New York Community Bank was unwilling to take on all Signature’s assets.

    “We are unsurprised the FDIC retained loans as we would expect banks to be cautious on quickly buying loans without liability and loss protections,” said Jaret Seiberg, analyst at TD Cowan. “More broadly, we see it as positive for consumer confidence for the branches to be opening Monday as NYCB branches.”

    The FDIC said Sunday it expects to sell off those assets over time, and the total cost to the government will ultimately be about $2.5 billion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UBS is buying Credit Suisse in bid to halt banking crisis | CNN Business

    UBS is buying Credit Suisse in bid to halt banking crisis | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Switzerland’s biggest bank, UBS, has agreed to buy its ailing rival Credit Suisse in an emergency rescue deal aimed at stemming financial market panic unleashed by the failure of two American banks earlier this month.

    “UBS today announced the takeover of Credit Suisse,” the Swiss National Bank said in a statement. It said the rescue would “secure financial stability and protect the Swiss economy.”

    UBS is paying 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.25 billion) for Credit Suisse, about 60% less than the bank was worth when markets closed on Friday. Credit Suisse shareholders will be largely wiped out, receiving the equivalent of just 0.76 Swiss francs in UBS shares for stock that was worth 1.86 Swiss francs on Friday.

    Extraordinarily, the deal will not need the approval of shareholders after the Swiss government agreed to change the law to remove any uncertainty about the deal.

    Credit Suisse

    (CS)
    had been losing the trust of investors and customers for years. In 2022, it recorded its worst loss since the global financial crisis. But confidence collapsed last week after it acknowledged “material weakness” in its bookkeeping and as the demise of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank spread fear about weaker institutions at a time when soaring interest rates have undermined the value of some financial assets.

    Shares in the 167-year-old bank fell 25% over the week, money poured from investment funds it manages and at one point account holders were withdrawing deposits of more than $10 billion per day, the Financial Times reported. An emergency loan of nearly $54 billion from the Swiss National Bank failed to stop the bleeding.

    But it did “build a bridge” to the weekend, to allow the rescue to be pieced together, Swiss officials said Sunday night.

    “This acquisition is attractive for UBS shareholders but, let us be clear, as far as Credit Suisse is concerned, this is an emergency rescue,” UBS chairman Colm Kelleher told reporters.

    “It is absolutely essential to the financial structure of Switzerland and … to global finance,” he told reporters.

    Desperate to prevent the meltdown spreading through the global financial system on Monday, Swiss authorities initiated the search for a private sector solution, with limited state support, while reportedly considering Plan B — a full or partial nationalization.

    “Given recent extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances, the announced merger represents the best available outcome,” Credit Suisse chairman Axel Lehmann said in a statement.

    “This has been an extremely challenging time for Credit Suisse and while the team has worked tirelessly to address many significant legacy issues and execute on its new strategy, we are forced to reach a solution today that provides a durable outcome.”

    The emergency takeover was agreed to after a days of frantic negotiations involving financial regulators in Switzerland, the United States and United Kingdom. UBS

    (UBS)
    and Credit Suisse rank among the 30 most important banks in the global financial system, and together they have almost $1.7 trillion in assets.

    Financial market regulators around the world cheered UBS’ action to take over Credit Suisse.

    US authorities said they supported the action and worked closely with the Swiss central bank to assist the takeover.

    “We welcome the announcements by the Swiss authorities today to support financial stability,” said US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, in a joint statement. “The capital and liquidity positions of the US. banking system are strong, and the US financial system is resilient.”

    Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank, said the banking sector remains resilient but the ECB stands at the ready to help banks maintain enough cash on hand to fund their operations if the need arises.

    “I welcome the swift action and the decisions taken by the Swiss authorities,” Lagarde said. “They are instrumental for restoring orderly market conditions and ensuring financial stability.

    The Bank of England said it welcomed the measures taken by the Swiss authorities “to support financial stability.”

    “We have been engaging closely with international counterparts throughout the preparations for today’s announcements and will continue to support their implementation,” it said in a statement. “The UK banking system is well capitalized and funded, and remains safe and sound.”

    The global headquarters of UBS and Credit Suisse are just 300 yards apart in Zurich but the banks’ fortunes have been on very different paths recently. Shares of UBS have climbed 15% in the past two years, and it booked a profit of $7.6 billion in 2022. It had a stock market value of about $65 billion on Friday, according to Refinitiv.

    Credit Suisse shares have lost 84% of their value over the same period, and last year it posted a loss of $7.9 billion. It was worth just $8 billion at the end of last week.

    Dating back to 1856, Credit Suisse has its roots in the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt (SKA), which was set up to finance the expansion of the railroad network and industrialization of Switzerland.

    In addition to being Switzerland’s second biggest bank, it looks after the wealth of many of the world’s richest people and offers global investment banking services. It had more than 50,000 employees at the end of 2022, 17,000 of those in Switzerland.

    The Swiss National Bank said it would provide a loan of 100 billion Swiss francs ($108 billion) to UBS and Credit Suisse to boost liquidity.

    UBS Chief Executive Ralph Hamers will be CEO of the combined bank, and Kelleher will serve as chairman.

    The takeover will reinforce the position of UBS as the world’s leading wealth manager with $5 trillion of invested assets, and boost its ambition to grow in the Americas and Asia. UBS said it expects to generate cost savings of $8 billion per year by 2027. Credit Suisse’s investment bank is in the crosshairs.

    “Let me be clear. UBS intends to downsize Credit Suisse’s investment banking business and align it with our conservative risk culture,” Kelleher said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: The SVB collapse doesn’t have to be the first in a chain of many | CNN

    Opinion: The SVB collapse doesn’t have to be the first in a chain of many | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Lanhee J. Chen is a regular contributor to CNN Opinion and the David and Diane Steffy fellow in American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution. He was a candidate for California state controller in 2022. He has played senior roles in both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations and has been an adviser to four presidential campaigns, including as policy director of 2012 Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan campaign. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    When Silicon Valley Bank collapsed this month, analysts and policymakers quickly began considering how to prevent similar failures from happening in the future. While there are changes that lawmakers should consider, when it comes to financial regulation, history shows us that politicians are usually reacting to the last crisis and one step behind the next one.

    The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s led to passage of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, which closed insolvent financial institutions, created new regulatory agencies and implemented restrictions on how savings and loan (or thrift) institutions could invest deposited funds.

    The 2007-2008 financial crisis led to passage of the sweeping Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, which revamped federal regulation of the financial services sector and placed restrictions on how banks do business. Amid criticism that Dodd-Frank had gone too far in regulating banks, a bipartisan coalition in Congress passed, and then-President Donald Trump signed into law in 2018, some rollbacks of Dodd-Frank’s requirements pertaining to small and midsize financial institutions.

    Democrats have largely blamed this rollback of regulations for SVB’s demise. Many Republicans, for their part, have focused their aim on whether the bank’s leadership spent too much time pursuing “woke” policies on diversity and sustainability rather than ensuring depositors were protected.

    The fact that there is so little overlap between Republican and Democrat critiques in the wake of SVB’s collapse illuminates the challenging road ahead for bipartisan policy solutions to avert a future similar failure. If the two sides can’t even agree on the principal cause of the bank’s failure, it’s unlikely there will be consensus on the policies needed to shore up the financial system for the future.

    But they should. While Democrats generally favor more aggressive oversight of the financial system and Republicans largely argue that the current regulatory scheme is sufficient, the right answer looking ahead is somewhere in between.

    In the wake of SVB’s failure, some regulatory interventions have come into focus and could form the basis of policy discussions in the coming weeks and months as Congress considers how to respond to the current banking crisis.

    First, SVB’s demise came when a lack of liquidity (or a shortfall of cash on hand) left it unable to pay out depositors when they came looking for their money. The bank had invested a disproportionate amount of assets in long-term debt that was purchased at a time when interest rates were much lower than they are today. When the bank attempted to liquidate this debt over the last few weeks, it was forced to do so at a significant loss. SVB failed to hedge against risk by diversifying its investments.

    When depositors tried to withdraw $42 billion in cash from the bank on a single day, SVB’s cash shortfall generated a panic among those who had deposits at the bank and raised concerns about the health of the US banking system more broadly.

    Just as individual investors are often advised to diversify their investment strategies to minimize risk, so too might politicians look to requirements that banks ensure that they have proper diversification in how they are investing their assets.

    Further, some Republicans and many Democrats are also calling for expanded deposit insurance so that bank deposits over the current federal cap of $250,000 are also insured. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a vocal supporter of increased financial sector regulation, has called for increased deposit insurance that would be paid for by banks. Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California is expected soon to introduce legislation that raises or removes the insurance cap entirely, such that deposits of all amounts will be protected.

    Some Republicans have joined them in addressing the insurance cap. Republican Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, for example, has argued that lifting the cap (for example, by ensuring the cap keeps up with inflation) would equalize the playing field between large banks and smaller local and regional ones. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has suggested that larger depositors might be insured up to the entire amount of their deposits in exchange for a small fee.

    If Congress moves toward increasing or eliminating the deposit insurance cap entirely, it should do so carefully. Depending on how the policy is constructed, such changes could disproportionately benefit wealthier institutional depositors or encourage bad behavior by banks if they know an open-ended bailout is waiting on the other end of risky investment decisions.

    Finally, some changes will undoubtedly come through the Federal Reserve, rather than Congress. This is probably a good thing, as these policymakers have some insulation from the political forces that directly affect lawmakers.

    The Federal Reserve, for example, will likely examine the extent of both capital and liquidity requirements at banks based on their total assets. A bank’s capital is the difference between its assets and liabilities or, put another way, the resources a bank has to ultimately absorb losses. Liquidity, by comparison, is a measure of the cash and assets a bank has immediately on hand to pay obligations (such as money that depositors might ask for).

    America’s central bank may also look at the content of “stress tests” created by the Dodd-Frank Act and designed to regularly assess the health of large financial institutions across the country. For nearly a decade, tests have been benchmarked to a low-interest rate environment, which is not reflective of recent conditions.

    But ultimately, the Federal Reserve is not blameless in the collapse of SVB as it created a fertile environment for the bank’s failure by keeping interest rates as low as they were for as long as they were. Lawmakers should do their part to make sure people understand that monetary policy has far-reaching impacts.

    While the best way to prevent the next SVB is likely to be viewed by policymakers through partisan-tinted glasses, there are avenues for Democrats and Republicans to work together. But the window to do so is narrow and closing. This time next year, we’ll be in the throes of presidential primary elections, and neither party will be particularly interested in compromise — even if that’s what our financial system needs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Confused about the bank meltdown? Here’s how to speak Wall Street | CNN Business

    Confused about the bank meltdown? Here’s how to speak Wall Street | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Wall Street can seem bewildering, given its sheer amount of jargon, banking terms, and acronyms.

    But headlines this week, from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank to Credit Suisse’s need for a lifeline to instability at First Republic, have made the business of finance a national concern.

    So when you hear the FDIC is taking over, a Treasury portfolio is sinking or a bank was backstopped and bailed out, what exactly does that mean?

    Here’s a guide to all the key terms you’ve been hearing.

    It’s an acronym for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an independent government agency that protects depositors in banks. It’s one of the main names as banking failures play out because it can step in and make sure the institutions are operating properly.

    When a bank fails, the standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.

    Providing financial support to an institution that would otherwise collapse. Bailouts are associated with government intervention, as it so famously did during the 2008 financial crisis.

    It’s important to note that though a government dispatched a rescue mission for SVB and First Republic, they were not bailed out by it.

    How easily a company or bank can turn an asset to cash without losing a ton of its value. Liquidity can be used to gauge the ability to pay off short-term loans or other bills. People feel comfortable in liquid markets because it’s generally fast and easy to buy and sell.

    The most “liquid” asset, as you can probably guess, is cash.

    Deposits are cash you put into your bank account, and withdrawals are money that’s taken out. A bank run is when a rush of clients withdraw money all at once, often due to rumor or panic.

    If a bank has a ratio above 100% (like First Republic), then it loans out more money than it has deposits. That’s not a good situation to be in.

    Investments backed by the US government – and known to be one of the safest ones out there. They include Treasury Bills, Treasury Bonds and Treasury Notes. However, Treasuries are sensitive to broader economic conditions like inflation and changing interest rates.

    The value of SVB’s Treasuries portfolio sank as interest rates rose.

    Anything that could be used to generate cash flow. That could be tangible assets like stocks and buildings, or intangible assets like brand recognition.

    Inflow is the money going into a business – think from product sales and from smart investments. Outflow is cash leaving the business.

    Technically, it’s alternative steps a business takes to meet its goals. That could include strategies like diversifying and product development.

    But what does it really mean? The company might be thinking about putting itself up for sale.

    A rapid and mass selling of a stock based on an upcoming fear – like rumors of a bank collapse.

    Cash or other rewards companies gift to their shareholders.

    An action that lets a company keep surviving. For example, Credit Suisse just got a $54 billion lifeline from the Swiss central bank, though that hasn’t entirely quelled investor fears yet. Another bank that benefited from a lifeline is First Republic, when 11 banks deposited $30 billion.

    This term is used widely in the financial sector to describe a last-resort financial protection, almost like an insurance policy. It’s a secondary source of funds through either credit support or guaranteed payment for unsubscribed shares.

    A system used by the FDIC that lets it take action on a bank crisis that could drag down the entire sector with it. Though it’s pretty rare to enact it, the FDIC used this exception to take over SVB and Signature Bank last week.

    This is the Fed’s main way to directly lend money to banks and provide them more liquidity and stability. The loans last up to 90 days. Many banks are utilizing this tool right now because the Fed made it easier to borrow from the discount window in the wake of SVB to avoid further bank runs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Credit Suisse faces fateful weekend. Will UBS step up with a rescue bid? | CNN Business

    Credit Suisse faces fateful weekend. Will UBS step up with a rescue bid? | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    The fate of Credit Suisse could be decided in the next 36 hours after a torrid week for Switzerland’s second biggest bank.

    Investors and customers pulled their money out of Credit Suisse over the past several days as turmoil swept the global banking industry following the collapse of two US lenders. Shares of the bank lost 25% over the course of the week, despite an emergency $54 billion loan from the Swiss National Bank. The price of financial contracts designed to protect investors against possible losses on its bonds soared to record levels.

    More than $450 million was pulled from European and US funds managed by the bank between Monday and Wednesday, according to Morningstar.

    The lifeline from the Swiss central bank, announced late Wednesday night after the stock had crashed to a new record low, bought Credit Suisse

    (CS)
    some time. But by Friday, analysts were speculating that a full-blown rescue would be needed, and reports began to swirl of a possible takeover by its biggest Swiss rival, UBS

    (UBS)
    .

    Reuters and the Financial Times, citing people familiar with the matter, both reported that Swiss regulators were urging the banks to agree a deal before markets open Monday to shore up confidence in the country’s banking system. The FT said the boards of UBS and Credit Suisse were expected to meet separately over the weekend.

    Credit Suisse and UBS both declined to comment to Reuters.

    BlackRock

    (BLK)
    , which owns 4% of Credit Suisse, denied a separate report in the Financial Times that it was drawing up an alternative bid for all or part of the beleagured bank.

    “BlackRock is not participating in any plans to acquire all or any part of Credit Suisse, and has no interest in doing so,” a BlackRock spokesperson told CNN.

    Credit Suisse, which is among the 30 most important banks in the global financial system, has been on the ropes for years following a series of scandals, huge losses and strategic missteps. Its stock is down 75% over the past 12 months. But the crisis of confidence escalated rapidly this month.

    The failure of Silicon Valley Bank last week, the biggest by a US lender since the global financial crisis of 2008, sent investors fleeing other players perceived as weak.

    Then Credit Suisse dropped another bombshell. Publishing its annual report on Tuesday, the 167-year-old bank acknowledged “material weakness” in its financial reporting, adding it had failed to adequately identify potential risks to its financial statements.

    The following day, its biggest shareholder — the Saudi National Bank — made clear it would not be pumping any more money into the bank, after spending $1.5 billion last year for a stake of almost 10%. That spooked investors.

    In a note on Thursday, JPMorgan banking analysts wrote that a takeover by UBS was the most probable endgame.

    UBS would likely spin off Credit Suisse’s Swiss business since the combined market share would make up about 30% of Switzerland’s domestic banking market and mean “too much concentration risk and market share control,” they added.

    In an article Saturday, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung — a newspaper in Zurich, home to both banks — said “the future of Credit Suisse will be decided this weekend.” The Swiss government was expected to make a statement on Sunday evening, it added.

    — Anna Cooban and Rob North contributed to this article.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • French workers may have to retire at 64 and many are in uproar. Here’s why | CNN

    French workers may have to retire at 64 and many are in uproar. Here’s why | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Paris
    CNN
     — 

    Impromptu protests broke out in Paris and across several French cities Thursday evening following a move by the government to force through reforms of the pension system that will push up the retirement age from 62 to 64.

    While the proposed reforms of France’s cherished pensions system were already controversial, it was the manner in which the bill was approved – sidestepping a vote in the country’s lower house, where President Emmanuel Macron’s party crucially lacks an outright majority – that arguably sparked the most anger.

    And that fury is widespread in France.

    Figures from pollster IFOP show that 83% of young adults (18-24) and 78% of those aged over 35 found the government’s manner of passing the bill “unjustified.” Even among pro-Macron voters – those who voted for him in the first round of last year’s presidential election, before a runoff with his far-right adversary – a majority of 58% disagreed with how the law was passed, regardless of their thoughts about the reforms.

    Macron made social reforms, especially of the pensions system, a flagship policy of his 2022 re-election and it’s a subject he has championed for much of his time in office. However, Thursday’s move has so inflamed opposition across the political spectrum, that some are questioning the wisdom of his hunger for reforms.

    Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne conceded in an interview Thursday night with TF1 that the government initially aimed to avoid using Article 49.3 of the constitution to crowbar the reforms past the National Assembly. The “collective decision” to do so was taken at a meeting with the president, ministers and allied lawmakers mid-Thursday, she said.

    For Macron’s cabinet, the simple answer to the government’s commitment to reforms is money. The current system – relying on the working population to pay for a growing age group of retirees – is no longer fit for purpose, the government says.

    Labor minister Olivier Dussopt said that without immediate action the pensions deficit will reach more than $13 billion annually by 2027. Referencing opponents of the reforms, Dussopt told CNN affiliate BFMTV: “Do they imagine that if we pause the reforms, we will pause the deficit?”

    When the proposal was unveiled in January, the government said the reforms would balance the deficit in 2030, with a multi-billion dollar surplus to pay for measures allowing those in physically demanding jobs to retire early.

    For Budget Minister Gabriel Attal, the calculus is clear. “If we don’t do [the reforms] today, we will have to do much more brutal measures in the future,” he said Friday in an interview with broadcaster France Inter.

    “No pensions reform has made the French happy,” Pascal Perrineau, political scientist at Sciences Po university, told CNN on Friday.

    “Each time there is opposition from public opinion, then little by little the project passes and basically, public opinion is resigned to it,” he said, adding that the government’s failure was in its inability to sell the project to French people.

    They’re not the first to fall at that hurdle. Pensions reform has long been a thorny issue in France. In 1995, weeks-long mass protests forced the government of the day to abandon plans to reform public sector pensions. In 2010, millions took to the streets to oppose raising the retirement age by two years to 62 and in 2014 further reforms were met with wide protests.

    An anti-pension reform demonstrator writes

    For many in France, the pensions system, as with social support more generally, is viewed as the bedrock of the state’s responsibilities and relationship with its citizens.

    The post-World War II social system enshrined rights to a state-funded pension and healthcare, which have been jealously guarded since, in a country where the state has long played a proactive role in ensuring a certain standard of living.

    France has one of the lowest retirement ages in the industrialized world, spending more than most other countries on pensions at nearly 14% of economic output, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    But as social discontent mounts over the surging cost of living, protesters at several strikes have repeated a common mantra to CNN: They are taxed heavily and want to preserve a right to a dignified old age.

    Macron is still early in his second term, having been re-elected in 2022, and still has four years to serve as the country’s leader. Despite any popular anger, his position is safe for now.

    However, Thursday’s use of Article 49.3 only reinforces past criticisms that he is out of touch with popular feeling and ambivalent to the will of the French public.

    Politicians to the far left and far right of Macron’s center-right party were quick to jump on his government’s move to skirt a parliamentary vote.

    “After the slap that the Prime Minister just gave the French people, by imposing a reform which they do not want, I think that Elisabeth Borne should go,” tweeted far-right politician Marine Le Pen on Thursday.

    Members of Parliament of left-wing coalition NUPES (New People's Ecologic and Social Union) hold placards as French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne addresses deputies to confirm the force through of the pension law without a parliament vote on Thursday.

    The leader of France’s far-left, Jean-Luc Melenchon was also quick to hammer the government, blasting the reforms as having “no parliamentary legitimacy” and calling for nationwide spontaneous strike action.

    For sure, popular anger over pension reforms will only complicate Macron’s intentions to introduce further reforms of the education and health sector – projects that were frozen by the Covid-19 pandemic – political scientist Perrineau told CNN.

    The current controversy could ultimately force Macron to negotiate more on future reforms, Perrineau warns – though he notes the French President is not known for compromise.

    His tendency to be “a little imperious, a little impatient” can make political negotiations harder, Perrineau said.

    That, he adds, is “perhaps the limit of Macronism.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SVB collapse was driven by ‘the first Twitter-fueled bank run’ | CNN Business

    SVB collapse was driven by ‘the first Twitter-fueled bank run’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The massive amount of customer withdrawals that led to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank had all the hallmarks of an old-fashioned bank run, but with a new twist befitting the primary industry the bank served: much of it unfolded online.

    Customers withdrew $42 billion in a single day last week from Silicon Valley Bank, leaving the bank with $1 billion in negative cash balance, the company said in a regulatory filing. The staggering withdrawals unfolded at a speed enabled by digital banking and were likely fueled in part by viral panic spreading on social media platforms and, reportedly, in private chat groups.

    In the day leading up to the bank’s collapse, multiple prominent venture capitalists took to Twitter in particular, and used their large platforms to raise alarms about the situation, sometimes typing in all caps. Some investors urged startups to rethink where they kept their cash. Founders and CEOs then shared tweets about the concerning situation at the bank in private Slack channels, according to The Wall Street Journal.

    On the other side of a screen, startup leaders raced to withdraw funds online – so many, in fact, that some told CNN the online system appeared to go down. Still, the end result was a modern race to withdraw funds, which House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry later described in a statement as ” the first Twitter-fueled bank run.”

    “Even back in the ancient days, way before we had any form of modern communication, this stuff tended to be rumors that moved really fast. The reason it would happen is people would walk down the street and observe people standing outside of banks,” Andrew Metrick, Janet L. Yellen Professor of Finance and Management at the Yale School of Management, told CNN. “Now we don’t have that, but we have Twitter.”

    The experience of the bank run was also far removed from prior eras when a large number of customers would physically show up at a bank to withdraw funds (though some did line up outside Silicon Valley Bank locations, too.) Now, many could do so online or through mobile devices.

    “What made the Silicon Valley Bank run unique was (1) the ease with which its customers could execute withdrawals and (2) the speed with which news of Silicon Valley Bank’s impending demise spread,” Ben Thompson, an analyst who tracks the tech industry, wrote in a post on Monday. “It was the speed, fueled by zero distribution costs for both rumors and withdrawals, that was so destabilizing.”

    Silicon Valley Bank was arguably uniquely susceptible to those factors given its tech-focused customer base. Moreover, its clients, many of whom were venture-backed businesses, were far more likely than the average consumer to keep more than the standard maximum FDIC insured amount of $250,000 in their accounts.

    “The FDIC covers 250K, but am I going to recover my whole 8 figures?” one startup founder told CNN last week, after the bank had collapsed. Other large tech companies kept even larger sums with the bank. That likely made the bank’s customers even more susceptible to the panic spreading online.

    Some prominent tech figures, including Mark Suster, a partner at venture capital firm Upfront Ventures, urged those in the VC community to “speak out publicly to quell the panic” around Silicon Valley Bank last week and cautioned against creating “mass hysteria.”

    “Classic ‘runs on the bank’ hurt our entire system,” he wrote in a lengthy Twitter thread on Thursday. “People are making public jokes about this. It’s not a joke, this is serious stuff. Please treat it as such.”

    His calls for calm weren’t enough. The next day, the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation stepped in and took control of the bank, which only added to the viral panic on Twitter.

    “YOU SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED RIGHT NOW,” Jason Calacanis, a tech investor, wrote on Twitter Sunday. “THAT IS THE PROPER REACTION.”

    Hours later, the Biden administration stepped in and guaranteed the bank’s customers would have access to all their money starting Monday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Baidu stock rebounds after falling sharply in wake of ChatGPT-style bot demo | CNN Business

    Baidu stock rebounds after falling sharply in wake of ChatGPT-style bot demo | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Shares in Chinese search giant Baidu rebounded sharply a day after it unveiled ERNIE Bot, its answer to the ChatGPT craze.

    Its stock soared 14.3% on Friday in Hong Kong, making it the biggest winner in the Hang Seng Index

    (HSI)
    . They also gained 3.8% in New York during US trade Thursday.

    A day earlier, Baidu

    (BIDU)
    was the biggest loser of the same index. Its Hong Kong shares fell 6.4% after a public demonstration of its bot failed to impress investors. Since February, more than 650 companies had joined the ERNIE ecosystem, CEO Robin Li said during the presentation.

    The reversal came after the company said more than 30,000 businesses had signed up to test out its chatbot service within two hours of its demonstration.

    “The high degree of enterprise interest is positive, and we expect Baidu to continue to capture China’s enterprise demand for generative AI,” Esme Pau, Macquarie’s head of China and Hong Kong internet and digital assets, told CNN.

    She said the company’s shares were bouncing back Friday as some users, including analysts, shared positive feedback of their own experiences trying out ERNIE, which suggested the bot had more advanced capabilities.

    During the presentation, Baidu showed how its chatbot could generate a company newsletter, come up with a corporate slogan and solve a math riddle.

    But its stock slumped on Thursday because the demo was “pre-recorded, and not live, which makes investors skeptical about the robustness of the ERNIE Bot,” according to Pau.

    Baidu’s demonstration also came just days after the launch of GPT-4, which “raised the bar for ERNIE,” she added.

    GPT-4 is the latest version of the artificial intelligence technology behind ChatGPT. The service has impressed users this week with its ability to simplify coding, rapidly create a website from a simple sketch and pass exams with high marks.

    Pau noted that Baidu’s shares were already “down modestly” before showing off its software on Thursday, highlighting pressure from investors who had raised expectations following the GPT-4 launch.

    “ERNIE also does not have the [same] multilingual capability as GPT-4, and has yet to improve for English queries,” she said. “Also, the ERNIE launch did not provide sufficient quantifiable metrics compared to the GPT-4 launch earlier this week.”

    Like ChatGPT, ERNIE is based on a language model, which is trained on vast troves of data online in order to generate compelling responses to user prompts.

    Li said Baidu’s expectations for ERNIE were “close to ChatGPT, or even GPT-4.”

    But he acknowledged the software was “not perfect yet,” adding it was being launched first to enterprise users. The service is not yet available to the public.

    Baidu announced its chatbot last month. Some critics say the service will add fuel to an existing US-China rivalry in emerging technologies.

    Li tried to shake off that comparison during the launch, saying the bot “is not a tool for the confrontation between China and the United States in science and technology, but a product of generations of Baidu technicians chasing the dream of changing the world with technology.”

    “It is a brand new platform for us to serve hundreds of millions of users and empower thousands of industries,” he said.

    Baidu says its service stands out because of its advanced grasp of Chinese queries, as well as its ability to generate different types of responses.

    “ERNIE Bot can produce text, images, audio and video given a text prompt, and is even capable of delivering voice in several local dialects such as the Sichuan dialect,” the company said in a statement.

    By comparison, GPT-4 is also able to analyze photos, but currently only generates text responses, according to its developer, OpenAI.

    Baidu isn’t the only Chinese firm working on such technology. Last month, Alibaba

    (BABA)
    announced plans to launch its own ChatGPT-style tool, adding to the list of tech giants jumping on the chatbot bandwagon.

    So far, Baidu has a first mover advantage in the space in China, according to analysts.

    “Our view is ERNIE is three to six months ahead of its potential contenders,” said Pau.

    — CNN’s Mengchen Zhang contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • First Republic secures $30 billion rescue from large banks | CNN Business

    First Republic secures $30 billion rescue from large banks | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    First Republic Bank, facing a crisis of confidence from investors and customers, is set to receive a $30 billion lifeline from a group of America’s largest banks.

    “This show of support by a group of large banks is most welcome, and demonstrates the resilience of the banking system,” the Treasury Department said in a statement Thursday.

    The major banks include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Truist.

    The $30 billion infusion will give the struggling San Francisco lender much-needed cash to meet customer withdrawals and buttress confidence in the US banking system during a tumultuous moment for lenders.

    A First Republic spokesman declined to comment.

    In a statement, the banks said their action “reflects their confidence in First Republic and in banks of all sizes,” adding that “regional, midsize and small banks are critical to the health and functioning of our financial system.”

    First Republic’s shares, which were halted several times for volatility Thursday, ended the day up more than 10%.

    The bank’s problems underscored continued worries about the banking system in the aftermath of the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.

    Both Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings downgraded First Republic Bank’s credit rating on Wednesday over concerns that depositors could pull their cash.

    Many regional banks, including First Republic, have large amounts of uninsured deposits above the $250,000 FDIC limit. Although not close to SVB’s massive percentage of uninsured deposits (94% of its total), First Republic has a sizable 68% of total deposits that are uninsured, according to S&P Global.

    That led many customers to exit the bank and put their money elsewhere, creating a problem for First Republic: It has to borrow money or sell assets to pay customers their deposits in cash.

    To make money, banks use a portion of customers’ deposits to give out loans to other customers. But First Republic has an unusually large 111% liability-to-deposit ratio, S&P Global says. That means the bank has lent out more money than it has in deposits from customers, making it a particularly risky bet for investors.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Thursday met privately in Washington with JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon before 11 banks agreed to deposit $30 billion in First Republic Bank to stabilize the teetering lender, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    The meeting served as a culmination of what had been a series of conversations over the last two days between Yellen and other US officials and leaders from some of the country’s largest banks as they sought a private sector lifeline for the battered California bank.

    Yellen had driven the effort from the government side, while Dimon led the effort to organize the bank executives that would eventually get behind the dramatic infusion of deposits.

    Yellen first conceived of the idea of the largest US banks coming together to direct deposits toward First Republic, according to a separate source familiar with the matter. The move was seen as critical to stabilizing the bank’s deposit base – but also a critical signal to financial markets about both the bank and the US financial system.

    The Federal Reserve created a loan system designed to prevent regional banks from failing after SVB collapsed. The facility will allow banks to give the Fed their Treasury bonds as collateral for one-year loans. In return, the Fed will give banks the value that the banks paid for the Treasuries, which have plunged in the past year as the Fed has hiked interest rates.

    That extraordinary federal intervention appears to have been insufficient to keep investors satisfied.

    First Republic on Sunday announced a deal with JPMorgan to gain fast access to cash if needed, and the bank then said it had $70 billion in unused assets that it could quickly use to pay customers’ withdrawals if needed.

    – CNN’s Phil Mattingly contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chinese billionaire arrested and charged in alleged fraud conspiracy that bilked investors of more than $1 billion | CNN Politics

    Chinese billionaire arrested and charged in alleged fraud conspiracy that bilked investors of more than $1 billion | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Chinese billionaire and proclaimed dissident Guo Wengui was arrested Wednesday and charged with defrauding thousands of followers out of more than $1 billion through complex investment schemes, US prosecutors announced Wednesday.

    Guo, a staunch critic of the Chinese government who is exiled in Manhattan and close to former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon, was taken into custody in New York on Wednesday morning. He is charged with defrauding or misappropriating investor money using different schemes, including his media company GTV Media Group, a farm loan program through Himalaya Farm Alliance, and a cryptocurrency called Himalaya Coin.

    Guo is also known as Ho Wan Kwok and Miles Guo.

    Prosecutors said instead of using the money the way he promised potential investors, Guo directed the funds to invest in a hedge fund to benefit GTV and a relative, to cover the maintenance payments for his $37 million, 145-foot luxury yacht, a New Jersey mansion and a custom-built Bugatti sports car valued at $4.4 million. Prosecutors said in a letter to the judge that they are seeking his detention, arguing he poses a serious risk of flight.

    CNN has reached out to Guo’s lawyer for comment.

    Guo co-founded two nonprofit organizations, the Rule of Law Foundation and the Rule of Law Society, that prosecutors allege he used to attract a following who believed in many of his ideas.

    Those nonprofits were linked to a group promoting the theory that the novel coronavirus was likely engineered in a Chinese lab. The Rule of Law organizations were co-founded by Guo and Bannon.

    Bannon has not been charged in this case.

    Bannon was arrested in 2020 on Guo’s yacht on unrelated fraud charges stemming from a border wall fundraising effort. Bannon was pardoned by Trump but indicted on similar state charges. Bannon has pleaded not guilty.

    50,000 square foot New Jersey mansion owned by Guo Wengui, according to the US Justice Department.

    Prosecutors said they have seized $634 million from 21 bank accounts and a Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roadster.

    In addition to criminal charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, international money laundering and obstruction of justice, Guo was also sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Asian markets tumble as SVB fallout fears rattle banking sector | CNN Business

    Asian markets tumble as SVB fallout fears rattle banking sector | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Asian stocks fell broadly on Tuesday, dragged down by banking shares, as fears over the fallout of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse gripped the market despite US government efforts to stabilize the financial system.

    Japan’s Nikkei 225

    (N225)
    tumbled 2.19% to post its third straight day of declines. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng

    (HSI)
    briefly dropped 2.5%, before trimming losses in the afternoon. Korea’s Kospi lost almost 3%. China’s Shanghai Composite shed 0.65%.

    Banks were the hardest hit sector across the region.

    HSBC

    (HBCYF)
    Holdings plunged more than 5% in Hong Kong after the banking giant pledged to inject 2 billion pounds ($2.4 billion) of liquidity into SVB’s UK unit, which it had bought for 1 pound. Standard Chartered Bank sank nearly 7%.

    The sell-off happened despite extraordinary measures by US regulators over the weekend to avert a potential banking crisis following the collapse of SVB. The California-based lender fell with astounding speed on Friday, marking America’s biggest bank shutdown since 2008.

    Investors are now on edge over whether the demise of SVB could spark a broader banking sector meltdown. On Monday, US stocks were mixed, with banking shares taking a hit.

    “Investors fear other financial institutions are sitting on significant unrealized losses on their balance sheets because of markedly higher interest rates,” said DBRS Morningstar analysts on Monday.

    The fear was “irrespective of fundamentals,” they said.

    US Treasury yields were sharply lower on Monday as investors flocked to safe-haven assets. The yield on the 2-year Treasury was briefly down more than 50 basis points, the biggest daily drop in decades.

    “At the moment, markets are speculating on a Fed’s U-turn, but are equally pricing in a greater degree of contagion in the banking sector turmoil, which is ultimately weighing on risk sentiment,” ING analysts wrote in a research note on Tuesday.

    Should the Federal Reserve accommodate market hopes and end its interest rate tightening cycle, there would be ample room for market sentiment to rebound, they said.

    Other Asia Pacific banking shares also fell.

    In Hong Kong, shares in Bank of China (Hong Kong) and Hang Seng Bank fell 3.7% and 1.3% respectively. Pan-Asian insurer AIA Group traded down 4.7%.

    In Tokyo, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Japan’s biggest bank, lost 8.4%. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group and Mizuho Financial Group both dropped more than 7%.

    In Seoul, KB Financial Group and Shinhan Financial Group fell 3.6% and 2.5% respectively.

    In Shanghai, China Merchants Bank dropped 1.2% and China Minsheng Banking Corp retreated by 0.3%.

    In Sydney, Macquarie Group pulled back by 3.1% and ANZ Group was 1.5% lower.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China’s Andon Health says it has full access to funds parked at collapsed lender SVB | CNN Business

    China’s Andon Health says it has full access to funds parked at collapsed lender SVB | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    China’s Andon Health, a maker of medical devices, says it has full access to funds parked at Silicon Valley Bank, after the US government intervened to backstop all the deposits at the failed lender.

    The Tianjin-based company, which manufactures consumer health devices and supplied Covid test kits to the United States during the pandemic, has cash deposits at SVB worth 5% of its total cash and cash equivalents.

    That amounts to approximately 675 million yuan ($98 million), according to calculations based on its most recent earnings report.

    “Our deposits at Silicon Valley Bank can be used in full and have not suffered any losses,” the company said in a Tuesday filing to the Shenzhen Stock Exchange.

    The announcement comes after the US government took extraordinary measures on Sunday to avert a potential banking crisis following the collapse of SVB. Those measures include guaranteeing that customers of the bank will have access to all their money starting Monday.

    By doing that, US regulators aimed to prevent more bank runs and to help companies that deposited large sums with affected banks to continue to make payroll and fund their operations

    The collapse of SVB, which courted Chinese start-ups, has caused widespread concern in China, where a string of founders and companies rushed to appease investors by saying their exposure was insignificant or nonexistent.

    So far, more than a dozen of firms have issued statements trying to pacify investors or clients, saying that their exposure to SVB was limited. Most were biotech companies.

    SVB, which worked with nearly half of all venture-backed tech and healthcare companies in the United States before it was taken over by the government, has a Chinese joint venture, which was set up in 2012 and targeted the country’s tech elite.

    The SPD Silicon Valley Bank, which was owned 50-50 owned by SVB and local partner Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, said Saturday that its operations were “sound.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin says covering the SVB meltdown is like ‘walking a tight rope’ | CNN Business

    CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin says covering the SVB meltdown is like ‘walking a tight rope’ | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Andrew Ross Sorkin woke up early Monday morning, long before the crack of dawn, after managing to sneak in a handful of hours of sleep.

    The New York Times columnist had been up late into the night working on his DealBook newsletter. And now he needed to rise for a special edition of “Squawk Box,” the CNBC program he has co-hosted since 2011.

    The special 5am edition of “Squawk” had been tasked with covering the continuing fallout stemming from the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, a massive financial news story that has drawn some eerie comparisons to the beginnings of the 2008 financial disaster.

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    It is a story Sorkin described covering as “a balancing act, a little bit like walking a tight rope.” On one hand, he said, journalists must avoid sparking panic and causing a catastrophic run on the banks. But, on the other hand, journalists also owe it to their audiences to deliver them a clear-eyed assessment of the state of affairs.

    “Our job as journalists is to tell the public what is happening — and if you believe in transparency, we should all want that,” Sorkin said. “The downside of transparency in real-time is sometimes news that may not be positive can pile on itself in a way. And so I think it is really just about trying to contextualize what we’re seeing.”

    “You don’t want to cause a run on a bank,” Sorkin added, “but then at the same time, if everyone is running and they have reason to run, I think it’s important that the public understands what’s happening.”

    The approach to delivering the news and covering the implosion of SVB that Sorkin described stands in stark contrast to some of the commentary saturating the internet and at other media outlets.

    Over the weekend, some venture capital influencers amplified fear and suggested the entire US banking system was on the verge of collapse. The investor Jason Calacanis, who hosts a podcast and commands a Twitter audience of nearly 700,000 followers, tweeted, “YOU SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED RIGHT NOW.” On the right-wing talk channel Fox News Monday morning, “Fox & Friends” co-host Ainsley Earhardt suggested Americans needed “to go to our banks and take our money out.”

    Unprecedented in its sheer speed and volume, SVB’s collapse is “fascinating,” Sorkin said, causing a meltdown only now possible in the “true age of social media, as well as what might be described as digital banking.”

    “The ability for information to spread rapidly, both good information and bad, and for people to act on that information and then going to a bank app and transferring funds from one place to another, makes the responsibility [for journalists] even greater,” Sorkin said.

    Sorkin said banking is ultimately a “confidence game,” explaining that it is “genuinely about whether people have confidence in leaving their money in a particular institution.” And in this current environment where social media influencers and other irresponsible voices thrive, Sorkin said it “inherently makes things less stable.”

    “You have a lot of people who are on social media who don’t necessarily feel the same responsibilities to contextualize the news in the same way I might try,” Sorkin said. He suggested that in the case of SVB, there may have been “a little smoke in the corner of the theater” that could have been addressed before a fire burst out and prompted danger.

    “If you scream ‘fire,’ everyone runs out of the theater,” Sorkin said. “Could the smoke have been put out before everyone ran out of the theater? Maybe.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chinese companies and founders rush to calm investors after SVB collapse | CNN Business

    Chinese companies and founders rush to calm investors after SVB collapse | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), which courted Chinese start-ups, has caused widespread concern in China, where a string of founders and companies rushed to appease investors by saying their exposure was insignificant or nonexistent.

    SVB, which worked with nearly half of all venture-backed tech and healthcare companies in the United States before it was taken over by the government, has a Chinese joint venture, which was set up in 2012 and targeted the country’s tech elite.

    The SPD Silicon Valley Bank, which was owned 50-50 owned by SVB and local partner Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, said Saturday that its operations were “sound.”

    “The bank has a standardized corporate governance structure and an independent balance sheet,” it said in a statement. “As China’s first technology bank, SPD Silicon Valley Bank is committed to serving Chinese science and technology companies, and has always had sound operations in accordance with Chinese laws and regulations.”

    It’s unclear what will happen to SVB’s ownership of the joint venture.

    SVB Financial Group, the parent company of SVB, also has two business consulting firms and one financial services firm in mainland China, according to corporate database Tianyancha.

    Concerns about the failure of SVB have spread around the world, as investors fretted about the broader risks to the global banking sector and any potential spillover effect.

    In an extraordinary move to restore confidence in America’s banking system, the Biden administration on Sunday guaranteed that customers of SVB and Signature Bank, which was closed by regulators, will have access to all their money.

    That action appears to have appeased global markets, with US futures rallying in response and some Asian markets paring earlier losses.

    In China, at least a dozen firms have issued statements since SVB collapsed trying to pacify investors or clients, saying that their exposure to the lender was limited. Most were biotech companies.

    BeiGene, one of China’s largest cancer-focused drug companies, said Monday it had more than $175 million uninsured cash deposits at SVB, which represents approximately 3.9% of its cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments.

    “The company does not expect the recent developments with SVB to significantly impact its operations,” it said.

    Zai Lab, a pharmaceutical firm, announced that its cash deposits at SVB were “immaterial” at about $23 million.

    The closure of SVB “will not have an impact” on the company’s ability to meet its operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements, including payroll, it said.

    Other companies that publicly assured investors included Andon Health, Sirnaomics, Everest Medicines, Broncus Medical, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Brii Biosciences, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Genor Biopharma and CANbridge Pharmaceuticals.

    Mobile ad tech firm Mobvista and wealth management firm Noah Holdings said their cash holdings at SVB were “minimal” or “immaterial.”

    Popular selfie app Meitu said it hadn’t held any bank accounts at SVB since 2020. It issued a statement “to avoid any potential public misunderstanding.”

    Ascletis Pharma, MicroPort NeuroTech, Antengene Corp, and Suzhou Basecare Medical Corporation also denied they had any deposits or business dealings with SVB.

    Pan Shiyi, co-founder and former chairman of Soho China, a major Beijing-based property developer, denied he had any money at SVB after reports went viral on social media that he had lost billions of yuan.

    “We never opened an account with Silicon Valley Bank, nor placed a deposit,” he said late Sunday on his Weibo account.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The tech industry avoided an ‘extinction-level event,’ but it’s not unscathed | CNN Business

    The tech industry avoided an ‘extinction-level event,’ but it’s not unscathed | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    For much of the weekend, Silicon Valley scrambled to find a way through what one prominent tech investor described as an “extinction-level event for startups” after the collapse of a top lender in the industry.

    Startups raced to line up loans from venture funds and fintech firms to make payroll. Venture-backed retailers hosted last-minute sales to boost their cash reserves. And at least one prominent startup accelerator convinced thousands of CEOs and founders to sign an “urgent” petition calling for Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and others to offer “relief.”

    Then, late Sunday, federal officials stepped in to guarantee that all customers of the failed Silicon Valley Bank would have access to their full deposits on Monday. The sense of relief was palpable throughout the tech sector.

    “Obviously, I’m quite relieved,” said Stefan Kalb, co-founder and CEO of Seattle-based startup Shelf Engine, who told CNN that his company would have had to shut down by the end of the week without the government intervention. “It was a very stressful weekend and I’m quite relieved with the news.”

    Parker Conrad, the CEO of HR platform Rippling, who had previously said some customers’ payrolls were being delayed by the bank failure, tweeted Sunday: “Anyone else breathing a sigh of relief and looking forward to a good night’s sleep tonight?”

    And Garry Tan, the CEO of tech startup accelerator Y Combinator who authored the petition to Yellen, praised the federal government for “decisive action.” Tan, the investor who had previously warned of “an *extinction level event* for startups” that would “set startups and innovation back by 10 years or more,” added his appreciation on Sunday for “everyone who helped us through a very very intense time.”

    But even as the tech industry enjoys a respite from a fearful weekend, unknowns remain. “You can feel the collective *sigh*,” Ryan Hoover, a tech founder and investor wrote on Twitter Sunday. “I’m still nervous,” he added. “Hard to predict the collateral effects.”

    It’s unclear how the aftershocks of the bank’s collapse will add to the startup industry’s growing challenges accessing capital. SVB’s collapse also risks changing how the world, and prospective recruits, think of Silicon Valley.

    For years, the term itself conjured an image of an enclave of bright, contrarian, libertarian engineers and thinkers who could see around corners and make big bets on the future. Now, that same industry is relying on the federal government to survive after failing to see the risk, or worse, contributing to it through a shared hysteria.

    In the chaotic days leading up to the bank’s collapse on Friday, some venture firms reportedly urged their portfolio companies to withdraw their money, which may have contributed to the bank failing.

    Then, over the weekend, many venture capitalists and tech founders banded together to try and lobby government and public goodwill towards saving the companies impacted by Silicon Valley Bank’s sudden collapse.

    While some VCs appeared to embrace fear-mongering on Twitter, much of the public messaging focused on the small businesses with exposure to Silicon Valley Bank that might be not be able to continue operating after losing access to the money in their bank account.

    “We are not asking for a bailout for the bank equity holders or its management; we are asking you to save innovation in the American economy,” the Y Combinator petition stated. “We ask for relief and attention to an immediate critical impact on small businesses, startups, and their employees who are depositors at the bank.”

    A separate coalition of more than a dozen venture capital firms, including Lightspeed Venture Partners and Upfront Ventures, released a joint statement late Friday supporting Silicon Valley Bank, given its unique and vital role in the startup economy. The bank worked with nearly half of all venture-backed tech and healthcare companies in the United States.

    “For forty years, it has been an important platform that played a pivotal role in serving the startup community and supporting the innovation economy in the US,” the statement read. “In the event that SVB were to be purchased and appropriately capitalized, we would be strongly supportive and encourage our portfolio companies to resume their banking relationship with them.”

    Even before the bank’s collapse, the startup industry was in a tough moment. Venture capital funding had dwindled amid rising interest rates and broader macroeconomic uncertainty; tech companies were cutting staff and ambitious projects; and some of the biggest private companies were reportedly slashing their valuations.

    The instability at a top tech lender, and the lingering questions about its impact on other regional banks and the broader financial system, risk making it even harder for money-losing startups to access the capital they need to survive.

    President Joe Biden emphasized in remarks Monday that “no losses will be borne by the taxpayers” related to the government’s intervention for Silicon Valley Bank. But some are already skeptical of that statement, including Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who wrote in an op-ed Monday morning, “We’ll see if that’s true.”

    More immediately, there’s uncertainty around how long it will take for companies to get their money out of the bank.

    As of Monday, Kalb said the money in his Silicon Valley Bank account has not been transferred yet to the new JPMorgan Chase account he set up for Shelf Engine on Thursday. “I’ve been obsessively checking my email,” he said. “Hopefully the money will be able to be transferred shortly.”

    Ben Kaufman, the co-founder of venture-backed toy store and online retailer Camp, told CNN’s Poppy Harlow in an interview Monday morning that he and his team spent the weekend trying to “fight for survival,” including holding a last-minute 40% off sale, using the code “BANKRUN,” to raise capital over the weekend.

    “We did not know how long it was going to take for us to get our cash out … we still kind of don’t, they say today, we’ll see what happens,” he said, noting the bank held 85% of his company’s assets. “We hope we can, and we’re so grateful that the Fed stepped in, and the way they did.”

    When asked if the past week’s events would change how and where he stores his money, Kaufman said that is “going to have to be a consideration moving forward.”

    “I don’t want to do this again,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wall Street pummels regional banks, despite Biden’s assurances | CNN Business

    Wall Street pummels regional banks, despite Biden’s assurances | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Wall Street’s confidence in regional banks remained shaky Monday, despite emergency measures from the Biden administration to protect customer deposits.

    First Republic shares fell more than 60% and were briefly halted for volatility. Western Alliance Bancorp’s stock also fell 60%, and PacWest Bancorp fell more than 34%.

    The SPDR S&P Regional Banking exchange-traded fund fell 11%.

    Monday’s turmoil for bank stocks stems from the collapse Friday of Silicon Valley Bank, which came unglued last week as customers panicked and yanked their deposits.

    Rather than bailing out the bank, the Biden administration and federal regulators on Sunday night said they would to backstop customers’ deposits — even those that weren’t insured. The same protections would be in place for customers of Signature, a New York regional lender that folded when depositors were apparently spooked by SVB’s demise.

    By guaranteeing all deposits — even the uninsured money that customers kept with the failed banks — the government aimed to prevent more bank runs and to help companies that deposited large sums with the banks to continue to make payroll and fund their operations.

    The Fed will also make additional funding available for eligible financial institutions to prevent runs on similar banks in the future.

    Despite those emergency measures to avoid a 2008-style crisis, investors sold off shares of regional banks that are seen as having similar risk potential.

    “It’s a good thing that we have the backstop, and it’s a good thing that the depositors were protected,” said Mike O’Rourke, chief market strategist at Jones Trading. “But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s still problems — you’re just basically buying time to sort the problems out in a better way.”

    The intervention from the Biden administration and the Fed does not amount to a 2008-style bailout, meaning investors in the banks’ stock and bonds will not be protected.

    O’Rourke said he’s not concerned about the health of the banking system.

    “It’s a confidence-crisis risk,” he said. “If we get through the next 24, 48 hours without the regulators having to close anymore banks, we should be fine.”

    First Republic lists $213 billion in assets. The lender reached out to customers over the weekend in a bid to reassure them.

    “In light of recent industry events, the last few days have caused uncertainty in the financial markets,” First Republic senior executives said in an email to clients viewed by CNN. “We want to take a moment to reinforce the safety and stability of First Republic, reflected in the continued strength of our capital, liquidity and operations.”

    —CNN’s Matt Egan contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed and what it could mean | CNN Business

    Why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed and what it could mean | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Silicon Valley Bank collapsed with astounding speed on Friday. Investors are now on edge about whether its demise could spark a broader banking meltdown.

    The US federal government has stepped in to guarantee customer deposits, but SVB’s downfall continues to reverberate across global financial markets. The government has also shut down Signature Bank, a regional bank that was teetering on the brink of collapse, and guaranteed its deposits.

    In a sign of how seriously officials are taking the SVB failure, US President Joe Biden told Americans Monday that they “can rest assured that our banking system is safe,” adding: “We will do whatever is needed on top of all this.”

    Here’s what you need to know about the biggest US bank failure since the global financial crisis.

    Established in 1983, Silicon Valley Bank was, just before collapsing, America’s 16th largest commercial bank. It provided banking services to nearly half of all US venture-backed technology and life science companies.

    It also has operations in Canada, China, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

    SVB benefited hugely from the tech sector’s explosive growth in recent years, fueled by ultra-low borrowing costs and a pandemic-induced boom in demand for digital services.

    The bank’s assets, which include loans, more than tripled from $71 billion at the end of 2019 to a peak of $220 billion at the end of March 2022, according to financial statements. Deposits ballooned from $62 billion to $198 billion over that period, as thousands of tech startups parked their cash at the lender. Its global headcount more than doubled.

    SVB’s collapse came suddenly, following a frenetic 48 hours during which customers yanked deposits from the lender in a classic run on the bank.

    But the root of its demise goes back several years. Like many other banks, SVB ploughed billions into US government bonds during the era of near-zero interest rates.

    What seemed like a safe bet quickly came unstuck, as the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates aggressively to tame inflation.

    When interest rates rise, bond prices fall, so the jump in rates eroded the value of SVB’s bond portfolio. The portfolio was yielding an average 1.79% return last week, far below the 10-year Treasury yield of around 3.9%, Reuters reported.

    At the same time, the Fed’s hiking spree sent borrowing costs higher, meaning tech startups had to channel more cash towards repaying debt. At the same time, they were struggling to raise new venture capital funding.

    That forced companies to draw down on deposits held by SVB to fund their operations and growth.

    While SVB’s problems can be traced back to its earlier investment decisions, the run on the bank was triggered Wednesday when the lender announced that it had sold a bunch of securities at a loss and would sell $2.25 billion in new shares to plug the hole in its finances.

    That set off panic among customers, who withdrew their money in large numbers.

    The bank’s stock plummeted 60% Thursday and dragged other bank shares down with it as investors began to fear a repeat of the global financial crisis a decade and a half ago.

    By Friday morning, trading in SVB shares was halted and it had abandoned efforts to raise capital or find a buyer. California regulators intervened, shutting the bank down and placing it in receivership under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which typically means liquidating the bank’s assets to pay back depositors and creditors.

    US regulators said Sunday that they would guarantee all SVB customers’ deposits. The move is aimed at preventing more bank runs and helping tech companies to continue paying staff and funding their operations.

    The intervention does not amount to a 2008-style bailout, however, which means investors in the company’s stock and bonds will not be protected.

    “Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out … and the reforms that have been put in place mean that we’re not going to do that again,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told CBS in an interview Sunday.

    “But we are concerned about depositors and are focused on trying to meet their needs.”

    There are already some signs of stress at other banks. Trading in First Republic Bank

    (FRC)
    and PacWest Bancorp

    (PACW)
    was temporarily halted Monday after the shares plunged 65% and 52% respectively. Charles Schwab

    (SCHW)
    stock was down 7% at 11.30 a.m. ET Monday.

    In Europe, the benchmark Stoxx Europe 600 Banks index, which tracks 42 big EU and UK banks, fell 5.6% in morning trade — notching its biggest fall since last March. Shares in embattled Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse were down 9%.

    SVB isn’t the only financial institution whose investments into government bonds and other assets have fallen dramatically in value.

    At the end of 2022, US banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses — assets that have decreased in price but haven’t been sold yet, according to the FDIC.

    In a sign that regulators have concerns about wider financial chaos, the Fed said Sunday that it would make additional funding available for eligible financial institutions to prevent the next SVB from collapsing.

    Most analysts point out that US and European banks have much stronger financial buffers now than during the global financial crisis. They also highlight that SVB had very heavy exposure to the tech sector, which has been particularly hard hit by rising interest rates.

    “While SVB is a major failure, [it] and other niche players like Signature are quite unique in the broader banking world,” research analysts David Covey, Adrian Cighi and Jaimin Shah at M&G Investments commented in a blog post on Monday. “So unique, in our view, that it is unlikely to create material problems for any of the large diversified banks in the US or Europe from a credit point of view.”

    HSBC stepped in Monday to buy SVB UK for £1 ($1.2), securing the deposits of thousands of British tech companies that hold money at the lender.

    Had a buyer not been found, SVB UK would have been placed into insolvency by the Bank of England, leaving customers with only deposits worth up to £85,000 ($100,000) — or £170,000 ($200,000) for joint accounts — guaranteed.

    The HSBC rescue is “fantastic news” for the UK startup ecosystem, said Piotr Pisarz, the CEO of Uncapped, a financial tech startup that lends to other startups. “I think we can all relax a bit today,” he told CNN.

    In a statement, HSBC CEO Noel Quinn said the acquisition “strengthens our commercial banking franchise and enhances our ability to serve innovative and fast-growing firms, including in the technology and life science sectors, in the UK and internationally.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • From Wile E. Coyote to edibles: Recession forecasts are getting weird | CNN Business

    From Wile E. Coyote to edibles: Recession forecasts are getting weird | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Understanding the economy is a complicated task, and even the experts are struggling to answer seemingly simple questions like “Are we on the brink of a recession?” or “Why isn’t inflation falling faster?”

    Many have resorted to the use of metaphor to convey the current complexity of the economy.

    It’s a communications tactic that some Federal Reserve officials have long favored. In the early 1980s, Nancy Teeters, the first woman appointed to the Federal Reserve Board, came up with an apt metaphor to explain why she disagreed with steep rate hikes implemented by then-Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.

    Her colleagues were “pulling the financial fabric of this country so tight that it’s going to rip,” she said. “Once you tear a piece of fabric, it’s very difficult, almost impossible, to put it back together again,” she added, before remarking that “none of these guys has ever sewn anything in his life.”

    These days, economists and analysts are turning to increasingly outlandish metaphors to help translate their thoughts.

    Here are some of the most interesting descriptors used recently and what they mean:

    Wile E. Coyote

    If you think back to Saturday morning cartoons, you may remember the never-ending, and mostly futile, chase between Wile E. Coyote and his nemesis, Road Runner. That pursuit often ended with Wile E. running off a cliff and into mid-air.

    The toons were fun sources of entertainment in our salad years, but former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers says they now double as a case study for the Fed and the economy.

    “The [Federal Reserve’s] process of bringing down inflation will bring on a recession at some stage, as it almost always has in the past,” Summers told CNN last week.

    And for the US economy, it could likely mean a “Wile E. Coyote moment,” Summers said — if we run off the cliff, gravity will eventually win out.

    “The economy could hit an air pocket in a few months,” he said.

    Antibiotics

    When describing the state of the economy, Summers doesn’t just rely on Looney Tunes. He also borrows from the medical community.

    While describing why the Fed can’t end its rate hike regimen when inflation shows signs of showing, Summers has compared higher interest rates to medicine for a country sick with high inflation. The entire dose must be taken for the treatment to fully work, he says.

    “We’ve all had the experience of taking a course of drugs and giving up, stopping the drugs, before the course was exhausted, simply because we felt better. And then, whatever infection we had came back and it was harder to fight the second time,” Summers told Boston’s NPR news station WBUR in February.

    For what it’s worth, Before the Bell is also guilty of using this one.

    Fog report

    We may be driving in the fog, landing a plane in the fog or even just walking in it.

    What’s important in this oft-used scenario is that it’s hard to see and we’re doing something that typically requires clear visibility.

    Clients “facing the fog of uncertainty in financial markets, economic growth and geopolitics,” should “avoid unnecessary lane changes,” and “allow extra time to reach your destination,” advised Goldman Sachs analysts earlier this year.

    It’s essentially a fancy way of saying that no one really knows what’s going on in this economy. Instead of attempting to find a way out of the chaos, investors should slow down, stay the course and wait for recovery.

    Edibles

    Late last year, investment analyst Peter Boockvar used a semi-illicit metaphor to explain why he thought the Fed might be over-tightening the economy into recession. He compared the Fed to an inexperienced consumer of weed gummies, which can take a long time to kick in.

    During that waiting period, an eager consumer may think the drugs aren’t working and eat more before the effects of the first dose even set in. They then inevitably find themselves way too stoned and feeling not-so-great.

    Boockvar was careful to note that he himself does not indulge in this practice, by the way.

    Storm chasing

    JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon should receive an honorary degree in meteorology for his recessionary weather predictions.

    The Big Bank exec has repeatedly referred to economic recession as a storm gathering on the horizon — occasionally he’ll update the public on how far away and how bad that storm is.

    Last summer Dimon spooked markets when he compared a possible upcoming recession to a “hurricane.” In November, he downgraded it to a “storm.”

    By January, his forecast was simply “storm clouds,” adding that he probably should never have used the term “hurricane.”

    Polyurethane

    Rick Rieder, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officer of Global Fixed Income, has likened the economy to a bendable piece of plastic. Much like the economy, he wrote, polyurethane, “displays flexibility and adaptability, but also durability and strength.”

    He added that “the material’s ability to be stretched, bent, stressed and flexed without breaking, while in fact returning to its original condition, is what makes it so chemically unique. In recent years the US economy has displayed a remarkable resilience to stresses and an extraordinary ability to adapt to changing conditions.”

    Last week Senator Elizabeth Warren grilled Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell about American job losses being potential casualties of the central bank’s battle against high inflation.

    Warren, a frequent critic of the Fed’s leader, noted that an additional 2 million people would have to lose their jobs if the unemployment rate rises from its current 3.6% rate to reach the Fed’s projections of 4.6% by the end of the year.

    “If you could speak directly to the two million hardworking people who have decent jobs today, who you’re planning to get fired over the next year, what would you say to them?” Warren asked.

    Powell argued that all Americans, not just two million, are suffering under high inflation.

    “Will working people be better off if we just walk away from our jobs and inflation remains 5% or 6%?” Powell replied.

    Warren cautioned Powell that he was “gambling with people’s lives.”

    The discussion was part of a larger cost-benefit conversation that keeps popping up around the jobs market: Which is worse — widespread job loss or elevated inflation?

    CNN spoke with two top economic analysts with different perspectives to gain a deeper understanding of the debate.

    Below is our interview with Johns Hopkins economist Laurence Ball.

    Yesterday we published our interview with Roosevelt Institute director Michael Konczal, you can read that here.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Before the Bell: Is it necessary to increase the unemployment rate to successfully fight inflation?

    Laurence Ball: There’s a trade off between inflation and unemployment. When the economy is very strong and unemployment is pushed down, inflation tends to be higher. Right now there are almost two job openings per unemployed worker, the supply of workers looking for jobs and the demand for firms to hire is out of whack. That’s leading to faster wage increases, which sounds good except that gets passed through to faster price increases and more inflation. So somehow the labor market has to be brought back towards a normal balance of workers and jobs and that means slowing down the economy, and that probably means raising unemployment.

    Can you explain the cost-benefit analysis of two million jobs lost to get down to 2% inflation?

    If we assume we have to get inflation down to 2%, then it’s just an unhappy fact of life that that’s going to require higher unemployment. But a lot of people, including me, think that if the Fed gets it down to 4% or 3%, that’s the time to declare victory or say, ‘close enough for government work.’

    It gets more and more expensive in terms of how much unemployment it costs to go from 3% to 2% inflation. Those last few points will have disproportionately large costs, and it’s very dubious if that’s really worth it.

    Now, the Fed has the political problem that they’ve been insisting on a 2% target rate for years. If they say right at this moment that 3% or 4% is okay that would be seen as surrendering or moving the goalposts. I think a likely outcome is that inflation gets down to 3% or 4% and the Fed continues to say their target is a 2% inflation rate but never does what has to be done to get it there.

    If you examine Fed history you see that 5% appears to be a magic number. When inflation is above 5% it becomes this big political issue. When it goes below 5% it disappears from the headlines.

    What do you think is important for our readers to know about this back-and-forth between Powell and Warren?

    Behind all of this, in a market economy there’s sort of a basic glitch. We have this thing called unemployment, we sort of chronically have not enough jobs for everybody and that’s a big problem. The problem can be reduced somewhat in the short run if you get the economy going very fast. But then that leads to inflation. Accepting that unemployment has to go back up is just recognizing that there’s this glitch in the market economy or capitalism. It’s not clear how we can get around that.

    CNN Business’ David Goldman reports

    In an extraordinary action to restore confidence in America’s banking system, the Biden administration on Sunday guaranteed that customers of the failed Silicon Valley Bank will have access to all their money starting Monday.

    In a related action, the government shut down Signature Bank, a regional bank that was teetering on the brink of collapse in recent days. Signature’s customers will receive a similar deal, ensuring that even uninsured deposits will be returned to them Monday.

    SVB collapse: live updates

    In a joint statement Sunday, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg said the FDIC will make SVB and Signature’s customers whole. By guaranteeing all deposits — even the uninsured money that customers kept with the failed banks — the government aimed to prevent more bank runs and to help companies that deposited large sums with the banks to continue to make payroll and fund their operations.

    The Fed will also make additional funding available for eligible financial institutions to prevent runs on similar banks in the future.

    Wall Street investors were relieved that the government intervened as stock futures rebounded on Sunday evening, although the rally is fading Monday morning. Markets had tumbled more than 3% Thursday and Friday as investors feared more bank failures and systemic risk for the tech sector.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • HSBC is buying SVB’s UK business for just over $1 | CNN Business

    HSBC is buying SVB’s UK business for just over $1 | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong/London
    CNN
     — 

    HSBC has scooped up the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank for £1 ($1.2), just days after its business in the United States collapsed in stunning fashion.

    SVB UK would have been placed into insolvency by the Bank of England following the failure of its parent, had a buyer not been found.

    In a statement, the Bank of England said it “can confirm that all depositors’ money with SVB UK is safe and secure as a result of this transaction.”

    Europe’s biggest bank announced the acquisition early Monday morning, saying the deal would be effective “immediately.”

    In a statement, HSBC CEO Noel Quinn said the deal means that “SVB UK customers can continue to bank as usual, safe in the knowledge that their deposits are backed by the strength, safety and security of HSBC.”

    “This acquisition makes excellent strategic sense for our business in the UK,” he said. “It strengthens our commercial banking franchise and enhances our ability to serve innovative and fast-growing firms, including in the technology and life-science sectors, in the UK and internationally.”

    As of last Friday, SVB UK had loans of approximately £5.5 billion ($6.7 billion) and deposits of around £6.7 billion ($8.1 billion), according to the statement. It also logged a pretax profit of £88 million ($106.5 million) in its last fiscal year ended December.

    SVB, a lender best known for providing financing to startups, had faced liquidity concerns in the United States, triggering a huge bank run last week. That ultimately led to its collapse, the second-biggest of a financial institution in US history, on Friday.

    US financial regulators reacted swiftly to concerns of contagion over the weekend, announcing that customers of the failed bank would get access to all their money starting Monday.

    Authorities have also guaranteed deposits for customers of Signature Bank, a regional US lender shut down by regulators because it had faced financial trouble in recent days.

    — This is a developing story and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Parisian streets littered with trash after wave of strikes | CNN

    Parisian streets littered with trash after wave of strikes | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Paris
    CNN
     — 

    The City of Lights has a garbage problem.

    Massive strikes in Paris against pension reform this week are affecting trash pickup services in the French capital, with piles of waste sitting on many of the city’s normally picturesque streets, including those just steps from monuments like the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe.

    As of Saturday, about 4,400 tonnes of trash were awaiting collection, a spokeswoman for the Paris mayor’s office said. The spokeswoman said that the problem is a blockage at trash incinerators caused by the strikes. Garbage trucks have thus been unable to pick up waste in much of the city because they have nowhere to put it.

    Not all neighborhoods have been equally affected. The municipal government is in charge of garbage collection in half of Paris’ 20 arrondissements. Private contractors are responsible for the other 10.

    Municipal services like trash collection in Paris have been affected since Tuesday, when strikes saw flights and trains canceled and delayed; oil refiners blockaded; schools shuttered; and left thousands without electricity. The French capital was the most affected, with nearly 60% of its primary school teachers walking out and the local metro forced to cut service to all but the busiest times.

    Massive protests have been staged regularly throughout France since January 19, with more than a million people coming out multiple to voice their opposition to the government’s plan to raise the official retirement age for most workers as part of reforms to the government’s pension system, one of Europe’s most generous.

    As of Saturday, about 4,400 metric tones of trash were awaiting collection on the streets of Paris, a spokeswoman for the mayor's office said.

    President Emmanuel Macron’s government says the changes are necessary to make the system financially stable.

    The trash buildup in Paris has been sparked health concerns among Parisians and local politicians. The mayor of the 17th arrondissement, Geoffroy Boulard, said in an interview with CNN affiliate BFMTV that he has asked Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo to hire a private service provider to intervene.

    “We can’t wait,” he said. “This is a matter of public health.”

    Boulard said he’s also worried about the proliferation of rats and rodents as well as Paris’ image.

    Another local mayor, Jean-Pierre Lecoq of the 6th arrondissement, asked Hidalgo to intervene in an open letter he published on Twitter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link