Long Before Silicon Valley Bank’s Collapse, Its CEO Helped Kill Tougher Oversight of Banks Like His

Greg Becker successfully pushed Congress to weaken risk checks enacted after the 2008 financial crisis.

Jeff Chiu/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Friday, regulators shut down Silicon Valley Bank, one of the most prominent banks in Silicon Valleyā€™s venture capital and startup hub. The bankā€™s collapse, the largest such failure since the 2008 financial crisis, has roiled the tech industry, in part because many venture capitalists and startups had millions in the bank coffers. The fate of those funds is now uncertain, potentially putting a number of tech companies, but also, the many jobs they provideā€”at significant risk.

This precarious scenario, however, may not have been been the case were it not for the work of SVBā€™s President Greg Becker, who eight years ago asked a Senate committee to relax regulations that would soon be applied to his own bank. His appearance kicked off a half-a-million-dollar lobbying effort that led to a bill, signed by then-President Trump, undoing regulations precisely as SVB and other banks had asked for.

At the 2015 Senate hearing, Becker had his sights set on chipping away at a portion of the Dodd-Frank Act, the sweeping Wall Street reform bill passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. A key rule in the law required that ā€œToo Big To Failā€ banksā€”which Dodd-Frank defined as those with more than $50 billion in assetsā€”undergo stricter oversight, including higher capital ratio requirements designed to shore up the big banksā€™ ability to withstand financial shocks.

Becker, along with several other banking executives, asked senators to raise the threshold for banks that should be subject to this expanded level of supervision from $50 billion in assetsā€”a milestone his bank was quickly approachingā€”to $250 billion. His testimony explained that the stricter risk checks would needlessly cost his banks millions, diverting resources from their ability to lend to ā€œsmall and growing businessesā€ that are ā€œjob creation engines.ā€

He argued that there was no need for these expensive, federal-government-mandated checks because SVBā€™s activities had a ā€œlow risk profileā€ā€”and because the bank was perfectly capable of keeping itself in check with its ā€œstrong risk management practices.ā€

Following the hearing and three years of SVB lobbying lawmakers, Becker got his wish: In 2018, Trump signed a bill into law raising the threshold for stricter bank oversight to $250 billion in assets.

Fast forward to 2023. With about $209 billion in assets, SVB has continued to operate below the bar where theyā€™d be subject to stricter risk checks. For years, theyā€™ve invested the bulk of their clientsā€™ deposits in hopes of earning returns. But in recent months, many of their startup clients have come to the bank to withdraw money, faced with a new landscape where taking on debt to operate their businesses is a lot more expensive, thanks to the Fedā€™s recent aggressive hikes in interest rates. But SVB didnā€™t have enough liquid cash to pay all of those requests at once. The result: major losses at the bank and, on Friday, a full-on collapseā€”the exact sort of bank failure that the original regulations that Becker fought against had set out to prevent.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate