When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


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

How Much Does Xi Jinping Care About Putin's ICC Arrest Warrant?

After the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives in Moscow for a three-day visit. How far will he be willing to go to support Putin, a fugitive from international justice?

Photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev

Extended meeting of Russian Interior Ministry board on Monday, March 20

Pierre Haski


PARIS — Since Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin said last year that the friendship between their nations was "boundless," the world has wondered where the limits really lie. The Chinese president's three-day visit to Russia, which began Monday, gives us an opportunity to assess.

Xi's visit is important in many ways, particularly because the International Criminal Court has just issued an arrest warrant against Putin for his role in forcibly sending thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia. For Putin, there could be no better response to this international court, which he does not recognize, than to appear alongside the president of a great country, which, like Russia, is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. How isolated can Putin really be, when the leader of 1.5 billion people in China comes to visit?

Keep reading...Show less

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.

The latest