When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

How SVB Is Different Than Lehman — And Not Different Enough

The fall of Silicon Valley Bank revives memories of Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. The two situations have some fundamental differences, but there is enough in common that the risks that SVB could spark a new global financial crisis is very real.

Photo of a person in front of a Silicon Valley Bank

A Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) branch office in Pasadena, California

Jean-Marc Vittori


PARIS — In finance, brands can be the omens of disaster. On Monday, April 2, 2007, New Century Financial collapsed. The fall of this "financial institution of the new century," which had failed to properly assess risks, was the true starting point of the great financial crisis that culminated 18 months later with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.

On Friday, March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was shut down by U.S. authorities following the largest bank run in history. Its clients wanted to withdraw $42 billion in a single day.

The closure of the Silicon Valley bank was a result of disastrous management, but also from its central role in a start-up ecosystem that's been weakened by a scarcity of money.

The key question is: Is this closure the starting point of a new crisis?

So far, financial authorities have decided to take strong measures to mitigate the panic. On Sunday, the Federal Reserve announced a plan that "fully protects all depositors." This is essential for SVB's client firms, 97% of which have assets exceeding $250,000 protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation created during the 1930s crisis. They will be able to pay their employees this week.

Still, the ghost of the Lehman Brothers collapse continues to haunt the financial markets, even if SVB is in many ways the opposite of Lehman. It is a local commercial bank, while Lehman was an international investment bank. Its headquarters in Santa Clara is a modest two-story concrete building, while Lehman occupied a 38-story skyscraper in Manhattan.

​The safest investments

The problems of the two banks, as well as their repercussions, are also very different. Lehman went bankrupt because it had lent too much money to risky mortgage players. The shock was immense because it was connected to other major banks through a myriad of financial transactions. Thus the "systemic" risk. In the eyes of accountants, it was class 1 and class 2 of the bank's assets that were at issue.

When SVB sold $21 billion in securities, it recorded a loss of $1.8 billion.

SVB, on the other hand, did something more original. Its loss had two causes. It invested money not in assets that were too risky, but in investments considered among the safest in the world — US Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities, which can be resold at any time. However, these securities have a flaw: when interest rates rise, their value decreases (until their yield equals the new market rate).

However, the Fed has sharply raised its short-term interest rate over the past year, and other rates have also risen significantly — ten-year rates, for example, have doubled approaching 4%. When SVB sold $21 billion in securities, it recorded a loss of $1.8 billion.

Photo of people in New York City at the \u200bOccupy Wall Street's 10th Anniversary

Occupy Wall Street 10th Anniversary 2021

Milo Hess/ZUMA

​Three indirect risks

And SVB had to sell these securities because its clients wanted their money back, long before the bank run on March 9. With tighter monetary conditions, start-ups are raising less money. And they prefer to invest their liquidity in money market funds where yields are becoming appreciable, rather than letting them sleep at SVB. It was these withdrawals that forced the bank to sell part of its securities and record the losses. Accountants would say that class 3 of the asset and class 2 of the liability are at issue.

The halt of SVB's flows is unlikely to cause a crash of large partner banks. The "systemic" risk is therefore not direct, unlike Lehman Brothers. But there are three indirect risks.

The first is that customers of small banks become worried and switch their accounts to larger, better-supervised institutions with thicker liquidity cushions to protect them.

To prevent these massive transfers, U.S. authorities have decided to protect SVB depositors (as well as those of Signature Bank, a New York-based bank very active in cryptocurrencies, which closed on Sunday, March 12).

Indefensible financiers

The second risk is an invisible chain reaction. The SVB story recalls accidents that have marked the road, from the downfall of New Century Financial to the Lehman Brothers apocalypse. In July 2007, two local banks, like SVB, had to be bailed out after losing a lot of money on financial products built on US real estate, the German banks IKB and SachsenLB.

In September 2007, the British bank Northern Rock experienced a "bank run" that knocked it down. In March 2008, investment bank Bear Stearns was taken over in a panic by JP Morgan, while SVB sought a savior (in vain).

They could have difficulty saving indefensible financiers.

Finally, the authorities could have difficulty saving indefensible financiers. Gregory Becker, the head of SVB, sold $3 million worth of bank shares in February. He had recruited the former CFO of a Lehman Brothers branch.

He successfully fought for Congress to raise the level of assets under management at which supervisory authorities closely monitor a bank's accounts, thus avoiding close surveillance of SVB.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the theorist of "black swans" that shake finance, quipped on Twitter: "They are all libertarians until they are hit by higher interest rates."

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

Black Sea Survivor: Tale Of A Ukrainian Special Agent Thrown Overboard In Enemy Waters

This is a tale of a Ukrainian special forces operator who wound up surviving 14 hours at sea, staying afloat and dodging Russian air and sea patrols.

Black Sea Survivor: Tale Of A Ukrainian Special Agent Thrown Overboard In Enemy Waters

Looking at the Black Sea in Odessa, Ukraine.

Rustem Khalilov and Roksana Kasumova

KYIV — During a covert operation in the Black Sea, a Ukrainian special agent was thrown overboard and spent the next 14 hours alone at sea, surrounded by enemy forces.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

The agent, who uses the call-sign "Conan," agreed to speak to Ukrainska Pravda, to share the details of nearly being lost forever at sea. He also shared some background on how he arrived in the Ukrainian special forces. Having grown up in a village in a rural territory of Ukraine, Conan describes himself as "a simple guy."

He'd worked in law enforcement, personal security and had a job as a fitness trainer when Russia launched its full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022. That's when he signed up with the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Main Directorate of Intelligence "Artan" battalion. It was nearly 18 months into his service, when Conan faced the most harrowing experience of the war. Here's his first-hand account:

Keep reading...Show less

The latest