One of Silicon Valley's Top Banks Fails; Assets are Seized

The four biggest US banks lost a whopping $52 billion in market value on Thursday. TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP/File
The four biggest US banks lost a whopping $52 billion in market value on Thursday. TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP/File
TT
20

One of Silicon Valley's Top Banks Fails; Assets are Seized

The four biggest US banks lost a whopping $52 billion in market value on Thursday. TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP/File
The four biggest US banks lost a whopping $52 billion in market value on Thursday. TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP/File

Regulators rushed Friday to seize the assets of one of Silicon Valley's top banks, marking the largest failure of a US financial institution since the height of the financial crisis almost 15 years ago.

Silicon Valley Bank, the nation’s 16th-largest bank, failed after depositors hurried to withdraw money this week amid anxiety over the bank’s health. It was the second biggest bank failure in US history after the collapse of Washington Mutual in 2008.
The bank served mostly technology workers and venture capital-backed companies, including some of the industry's best-known brands.

“This is an extinction-level event for startups,” said Garry Tan, CEO of Y Combinator, a startup incubator that launched Airbnb, DoorDash and Dropbox and has referred hundreds of entrepreneurs to the bank.

“I literally have been hearing from hundreds of our founders asking for help on how they can get through this. They are asking, ‘Do I have to furlough my workers?’”

There appeared to be little chance of the chaos spreading in the broader banking sector, as it did in the months leading up to the Great Recession. The biggest banks — those most likely to cause an economic meltdown — have healthy balance sheets and plenty of capital.

Nearly half of the US technology and health care companies that went public last year after getting early funding from venture capital firms were Silicon Valley Bank customers, according to the bank’s website.

The bank also boasted of its connections to leading tech companies such as Shopify, ZipRecruiter and one of the top venture capital firms, Andreesson Horowitz.

Tan estimated that nearly one-third of Y Combinator’s startups will not be able to make payroll at some point in the next month if they cannot access their money.

Internet TV provider Roku was among casualties of the bank collapse. It said in a regulatory filing Friday that about 26% of its cash — $487 million — was deposited at Silicon Valley Bank.

Roku said its deposits with SVB were largely uninsured and it didn’t know “to what extent” it would be able to recover them.

As part of the seizure, California bank regulators and the FDIC transferred the bank's assets to a newly created institution — the Deposit Insurance Bank of Santa Clara. The new bank will start paying out insured deposits on Monday. Then the FDIC and California regulators plan to sell off the rest of the assets to make other depositors whole.

There was unease in the banking sector all week, with shares tumbling by double digits. Then news of Silicon Valley Bank's distress pushed shares of almost all financial institutions even lower Friday.

The failure arrived with incredible speed. Some industry analysts suggested Friday that the bank was still a good company and a wise investment. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley Bank executives were trying to raise capital and find additional investors. However, trading in the bank’s shares was halted before stock market's opening bell due to extreme volatility.

Shortly before noon, the FDIC moved to shutter the bank. Notably, the agency did not wait until the close of business, which is the typical approach. The FDIC could not immediately find a buyer for the bank's assets, signaling how fast depositors cashed out.

The White House said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was “watching closely.” The administration sought to reassure the public that the banking system is much healthier than during the Great Recession.

“Our banking system is in a fundamentally different place than it was, you know, a decade ago,” said Cecilia Rouse, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. “The reforms that were put in place back then really provide the kind of resilience that we’d like to see.”

In 2007, the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression rippled across the globe after mortgage-backed securities tied to ill-advised housing loans collapsed in value. The panic on Wall Street led to the demise of Lehman Brothers, a firm founded in 1847.
Because major banks had extensive exposure to one another, the crisis led to a cascading breakdown in the global financial system, putting millions out of work.

At the time of its failure, Silicon Valley Bank, which is based in Santa Clara, California, had $209 billion in total assets, the FDIC said. It was unclear how many of its deposits were above the $250,000 insurance limit, but previous regulatory reports showed that lots of accounts exceeded that amount.

The bank announced plans Thursday to raise up to $1.75 billion in order to strengthen its capital position. That sent investors scurrying and shares plunged 60%. They tumbled lower still Friday before the opening of the Nasdaq, where the bank's shares were traded.

As its name implied, Silicon Valley Bank was a major financial conduit between the technology sector, startups and tech workers. It was seen as good business sense to develop a relationship with the bank if a startup founder wanted to find new investors or go public.

Conceived in 1983 by co-founders Bill Biggerstaff and Robert Medearis during a poker game, the bank leveraged its Silicon Valley roots to become a financial cornerstone in the tech industry.

Bill Tyler, director of operations for TWG Supply in Grapevine, Texas, said he first realized something was wrong when his employees texted him at 6:30 a.m. Friday to complain that they did not receive their paychecks.

TWG, which has just 18 employees, had already sent the money for the checks to a payroll services provider that used Silicon Valley Bank. Tyler was scrambling to figure out how to pay his workers.

"We’re waiting on roughly $27,000," he said. "It’s already not a timely payment. It’s already an uncomfortable position. I don’t want to ask any employees, to say, ‘Hey, can you wait until mid-next week to get paid?’”

Silicon Valley Bank's ties to the tech sector added to its troubles. Technology stocks have been hit hard in the past 18 months after a growth surge during the pandemic, and layoffs have spread throughout the industry. Venture capital funding has also been declining.

At the same time, the bank was hit hard by the Federal Reserve's fight against inflation and an aggressive series of interest rate hikes to cool the economy.

As the Fed raises its benchmark interest rate, the value of generally stable bonds starts to fall. That is not typically a problem, but when depositors grow anxious and begin withdrawing their money, banks sometimes have to sell those bonds before they mature to cover the exodus.

That is exactly what happened to Silicon Valley Bank, which had to sell $21 billion in highly liquid assets to cover the sudden withdrawals. It took a $1.8 billion loss on that sale.

Ashley Tyrner, CEO of FarmboxRx, said she had spoken to several friends whose businesses are backed by venture capital. She described them as being “beside themselves” over the bank's failure. Tyrner's chief operating officer tried to withdraw her company's funds on Thursday but failed to do so in time.

“One friend said they couldn't make payroll today and cried when they had to inform 200 employees because of this issue,” Tyrner said.



United States Eases Port Fees on China-Built Ships after Industry Backlash

 Ships are seen under construction at the Jinling Shipyard in Nanjing, in China's eastern Jiangsu province on April 14, 2025. (AFP)
Ships are seen under construction at the Jinling Shipyard in Nanjing, in China's eastern Jiangsu province on April 14, 2025. (AFP)
TT
20

United States Eases Port Fees on China-Built Ships after Industry Backlash

 Ships are seen under construction at the Jinling Shipyard in Nanjing, in China's eastern Jiangsu province on April 14, 2025. (AFP)
Ships are seen under construction at the Jinling Shipyard in Nanjing, in China's eastern Jiangsu province on April 14, 2025. (AFP)

The Trump administration shielded on Thursday domestic exporters and vessel owners servicing the Great Lakes, the Caribbean and US territories from port fees to be levied on China-built vessels, aiming to revive US shipbuilding.

The Federal Register notice posted by the US Trade Representative was watered down from a February proposal for fees on China-built ships of up to $1.5 million per port call that sent a chill through the global shipping industry.

Ocean shipping transports about 80% of global trade - from food and furniture to cement and coal. Industry executives feared virtually every cargo carrier could face steep, stacking fees that would make US export prices unattractive and foist annual import costs of $30 billion on American consumers.

"Ships and shipping are vital to American economic security and the free flow of commerce," US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. "The Trump administration's actions will begin to reverse Chinese dominance, address threats to the US supply chain, and send a demand signal for US-built ships."

Still, the fees on Chinese-built ships add another irritant to swiftly rising trade tensions between the world's two largest economies as President Donald Trump seeks to draw China into talks on his new tariffs of 145% on many of its goods.

The revisions tackle major concerns voiced in a tsunami of opposition from the global maritime industry, including domestic port and vessel operators as well as US shippers of everything from coal and corn to bananas and cement.

They grant some requested carve-outs, while phasing in fees that reflect the fact US shipbuilders, which turn out about five vessels annually, will need years to compete with China's output of more than 1,700 a year.

The USTR exempted ships that ferry goods between domestic ports as well as from those ports to Caribbean islands and US territories. Both American and Canadian vessels that call at Great Lakes ports have also won a reprieve.

As a result, companies such as US-based carriers Matson and Seaboard Marine would dodge the fees. Also exempt are empty ships arriving at US ports to load up with exports such as wheat and soybeans.

Foreign roll-on/roll-off auto carriers, known as ro-ros, are eligible for refunds of fees if they order or take delivery of a US-built vessel of equivalent capacity in the next three years.

The USTR set a long timeline for liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers. They are required to move 1% of US LNG exports on US-built, operated and flagged vessels within four years. That percentage would rise to 4% by 2035 and to 15% by 2047.

The agency, which will implement the levies in 180 days, also declined to impose fees based on the percentage of Chinese-built ships in a fleet or on prospective orders of Chinese ships, as originally proposed.

The fees will be applied once each voyage on affected ships a maximum of six times a year.

Executives of global container ship operators, such as MSC and Maersk, which visit multiple ports during each sailing to the United States, had warned the fees would quickly pile up.

Instead of a flat individual fee on large vessels, the USTR instead opted to levy fees based on net tonnage or each container unloaded, as was called for by operators of small ships and transporters of heavy commodities such as iron ore.

From October 14, Chinese-built and owned ships will be charged $50 a net ton, a rate that will increase by $30 a year over the next three years.

That will apply if the fee is higher than an alternative calculation method that charges $120 for each container discharged, rising to $250 after three years.

Chinese-built ships owned by non-Chinese firms will be charged $18 a net ton, with annual fee increases of $5 over the same period.

It was not immediately clear how high the maximum fees would run for large container vessels, but the new rules give non-Chinese shipping companies a clear edge over operators such as China's COSCO.

The notice comes on the one-year anniversary of the launch of the USTR's investigation into China's maritime activities.

In January, the agency concluded that China uses unfair policies and practices to dominate global shipping.

The actions by both the Biden and Trump administrations reflect rare bipartisan consensus on the need to revive US shipbuilding and strengthen naval readiness.

Leaders of the United Steelworkers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, two of five unions that called for the investigation that led to Thursday's announcement, applauded the plan and said they were ready to work with the USTR and Congress to reinvigorate domestic shipbuilding and create high-quality jobs.

The American Apparel & Footwear Association reiterated its opposition, saying port fees and proposed tariffs equipment will reduce trade and lead to higher prices for shoppers.

At a May 19 hearing, the USTR will discuss proposed tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes, chassis that carry containers and chassis parts. China dominates the manufacture of port cranes, which the USTR plans to hit with a tariff of 100%.

The Federal Register did not say if the funds raised by the fees and proposed crane and container tariffs would be dedicated to fund a revival of US shipbuilding.