It's pretty ambiguous. The case for no:
Regulators closed the bank because they didn't trust managers. "The bank failed to provide reliable and consistent data, creating a significant crisis of confidence in the bank’s leadership"
“By Sunday morning, the executives of the bank believed they had satisfied the need for the data and had secured the capital from the discount window and elsewhere,”
The regulators “wanted to send a message to get people away from crypto,” Frank said in a Bloomberg radio interview Monday (I personally don't give much credence to this take)
The case for yes:
I believe that what prompted the regulators to start looking into the numbers of Signature was a run on the bank that was partially (but not exclusively) motivated by the run on SVB. The article mentions one example of this
What does "cause" mean?
@octothorpe is SVB failing a direct impact to the other bank that otherwise would allow it to survive
All signs point to Signature failing at some point this month regardless of SVB collapsing. By the criteria, that can’t count as a yes.
Apparently, it was closed by regulators to send an anti-crypto message to banks. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/13/signature-bank-third-biggest-bank-failure-in-us-history.html
Looking likely yes to me, but since there has been some contention in the comments I'm leaving it open until Friday at the earliest to see if we get more details
Circle raised Signature bank due to their SVB exposure causing withdrawals.
It is so.
@Gigacasting From a cursory internet search, I can't find any source which says that.
Signature bank just seized
@BTE has it been reported that it failed because of svb?
@BraulioValdivielsoMartine I don't know how old you were in 2008 but banks don't really fail in isolation very often. They fail like dominos fall because of similar risk profiles exacerbated by ongoing run on deposits.
It looks like Signature Bank's woes began long before the SVB crisis. Because of it's relationship with the crypto sector, it seems more likely to me to be related to Silvergate's collapse than SVB's. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2707266859?parentSessionId=v02fbJDloYmoh%2FMnSEssH4ywzXFPJtAzTCqP8deQ%2BfU%3D
@BTE that bank failures are correlated I know. I'm just a bit sceptical that SVB's caused Signature's. It's entirely possible, I just don't know
@BraulioValdivielsoMartine Would signature have failed if svb had not? Unlikely.
@BTE maybe, but @Yoav 's take that it was related to silvergate and not svb seems reasonable as well?
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htm indicates a likely link between SVB and Signature. "We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority."
@jack This article argues that unlike SVB, Signature’s collapse was due to its links to the crypto industry, which was turning away from it. https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/signature-bank-failure-a0adf63f#
Signatures stock price tracks somewhat closely with Bitcoin, down 80% since Feb ‘22. It was also down 30% in the month prior to March 10, when SVB collapsed, diverging sharply from Bitcoin—so it had unrelated, longer term issues, like Silvergate. Signature also didn’t have a Hold to Maturity liquidity issue. Just goes to show how much likelier this was a Signature-crypto problem rather than one like SVB’s.
@jack they could be linked in that both failures were caused (transitively) by higher interest rates, but need not have caused one another?
Does this resolve yes if any bank fails, or only those which clearly would not have failed had SVB not failed?