Jump to content

Talk:2023 United States banking crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 60.53.35.139 (talk) at 09:04, 4 May 2023 (→Global or U.S.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cryptocurrency

@Red-tailed hawk: I feel like the article puts too much emphasis on the crypto exposure. SVB is mostly a startup-oriented bank, which while include crypto companies does not mean they invest in bitcoin. Same with Signature, though Silver Lake indeed is notorious for it. Still, SL is the smallest of the three collapses. Juxlos (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is still very much a work in progress. I can slap the {{under construction}} tag back on to indicate this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: I agree. Here https://themacrocompass.substack.com/p/banking-crisis is a nice article talking about the mechanics of why SVB failed and it has nothing to do with cryptocurrency or investments in tech start-ups. Please DYR as the current version doesn't really hit close to the reality of the issues. "Yellen described rising interest rates, which have been increased by the Federal Reserve to combat inflation, as the core problem for Silicon Valley Bank. Many of its assets, such as bonds or mortgage-backed securities, lost market value as rates climbed." https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/yellen-pledges-help-for-svb-depositors-but-says-no-to-bailout-20230313-p5crih This also aligns with what the first link from macrocompass talks about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.247.224 (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Red-tailed hawk (talk). Self-nominated at 18:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/March 2023 United States bank failures; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Hi Red-tailed hawk (talk), article started 12 March and exceeds minimum length; cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable sources; I didn't notice any overly close paraphrasing in a spotcheck on sources, Earwig looks to be down for me at the moment but happy to AGF on this article by a trusted user (and WP:COPYCLERK!); hook fact is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to Reuters article cited; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me, a fine article on a current event - Dumelow (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the article. My concern here is the stability of the article, but I do not see any edit wars. Bruxton (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: What caused the unpromotion? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: WP:DYKCRIT 1c - can't be both ITN and DYK. Juxlos (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Silvergate has not failed or closed

A bank fails when its regulator orders the seizure of its business, and it closes when it stops serving clients. Neither of these has happened to Silvergate. It has shut down some business lines but is continuing to conduct business in others as it moves toward liquidation. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a liquidation caused by massive losses on such a substantial level that the company had to enter liquidation. Merely because the bank was not seized by regulators does not imply that a wholesale liquidation is something other than a failure (or a collapse), which is how RS describe this situation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary to be precise on this point, even when the press might not be, considering what could happen if Wikipedia carelessly identifies a bank here as having failed when it has not exactly. Cite the regulators, not just news reports. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails verification tag added

I've moved some content from the background section to the section on Silvergate's collapse. I don't doubt that the bank gained additional scrutiny, but I'm not seeing it named at all in the Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations cited source. I'm posting here in case there exist citations that can be provided for this, but I'm not easily able to find them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warren op-ed

Elizabeth Warren, who has generally advocated stonger regulation of banks and has been involved with the issue for quite a while, has a relevant op-ed in the NY Times today. She is quite critical of Jerome Powell. Perhaps some of her comments can be incorporated into this article. Her views are usually considered controversial, so balancing viewpoints would probably need to be included. Robert.Allen (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might warrant mention in the Federal Response section, but I would want to wait to see legislative proposals before incorporating it there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under Background there could be more here with opinions from public figures concerning possible causes: Warren maintains that the roll-back of the Dodd-Frank Act and the relaxation of bank regulations in 2018 played a role in these banks going under, in particular the "tailoring" under Powell of regulations for specific banks. For example, she says: "Banks like S.V.B. ‌— which had become the 16th largest bank in the country before regulators shut it down on Friday ‌—‌ got relief from stringent requirements, basing their claim on the laughable assertion that banks like them weren’t actually 'big' ‌and therefore didn’t need strong oversight." For balance, there are some quotes in an article in The Atlantic. For example, De Santis: "“I mean, this bank, they’re so concerned with DEI and politics and all kinds of stuff. I think that really diverted from them focusing on their core mission.” Also: Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter: “SVB is what happens when you push a leftist/woke ideology and have that take precedent over common sense business practices. This won’t be the last failure of this nature so long as people are rewarded for pushing this bs.” --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Ideas" section of The Atlantic is its opinion section, so we've got another opinion piece here. I feel like we're going to have better reports on the financial causes of the collapses when news organizations (and academics) do deep investigative reporting. For what it's worth, the issue that killed SVB was liquidity more than anything else. It (like Silvergate) took a fairly conservative approach to investing, and the 2014 liquidity coverage ratio regulations used the same $250 billion cap to distinguish the very big banks from the not-so-big banks (though community banks, like Silvergate, were exempt from the rule altogether). I think waiting here until we get more reliable coverage or in-depth analysis by SMEs is going to be better for the article than adding the op-eds at this point. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether The Atlantic article is an opinion piece or not, the quotes are likely accurate. However, it's not clear to me what special exemptions SVB got from the Fed that Warren is referring to or how that might have contributed to its failure. I would hesitate to rely entirely on the WSJ regarding whether their investments were conservative or not or the regulatory issue. Andrew Ross Sorkin of The NY Times states: "The company had invested its deposits in low-interest rate bonds that it held on its books on a long-term 'hold-to-maturity' basis. That means that it did not have to mark-to-market those bonds until they were sold, leaving investors with a somewhat distorted view of its balance sheet. So long as a bank doesn’t need to sell 'hold-to-maturity' assets to meet withdrawal requests, there is no problem. But if a bank has to sell at a loss, that’s when things get complicated." The Guardian reports the CEO and CFO may be sued for "concealing how rising interest rates would leave its Silicon Valley Bank unit 'particularly susceptible' to a bank run." It seems to me, a significant problem was the high amount of its deposit holdings that was uninsured. That probably led to a lot of withdrawals when questions arose. As an aside, according to the NY Times, Barney Frank claims Signature was targeted by the regulators because of their cryptocurrency holdings, to make a point about avoiding crypto. [1]. Since they reported he "received more than $2.4 million in cash and stock from Signature during his seven-plus years on the board", they seem to imply he's likely not unbiased. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; ultimately the lack of insurance is part of what led to the bank runs—people did not want their money tied up in a bankruptcy proceeding. Something like the first paragraph of the Silvergate Bank subsection of "Bank collapses" seems like it would warrant adding to the SVB section. I'll admit that I've tried to focus my writing/research on the collapse of Silvergate and Signature; I figured it wouldn't make sense to duplicate the efforts of building Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in the short term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moody's have downgraded US banking https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64949786 Also discussion on traders factoring in fewer rate hikes. I'm unsure whether it needs a mention. I'm no economist but I wonder, notwithstanding the crypto collapse, whether this might have happened anyway. A decade of near zero etc - there have been many warnings about the impact of fast hikes. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Japanese Topix index down 7.4% in BBC link. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the article says that it's downgraded the sector, is that referring to how Moody's rates the sector's debt or to its outlook on the stock prices? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..deteriorated the operating environment for the sector.." (Moody's) I take that to mean the debt. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/moodys-changes-outlook-us-banking-system-negative-2023-03-14/ I'll leave further edits to others - I don't have the confidence on this subject. Thanks. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Neutral point of view 41.234.25.236 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i concur. SWinxy (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation into Signature w.r.t. money laundering

My reading of the Bloomberg source is that Signature hasn't been accused of wrongdoing in the probe, and that the investigation is still active. Even so, it looks like the probe is about whether the bank itself took steps to detect money laundering *by clients*; it's not clear at all from the Bloomberg report that this was the cause (or a contributor in) the bank's collapse and seizure by the banking authorities of the State of New York. I've included it in the body for now, but I don't think it warrants mention in the lead at this time — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a significant crisis of confidence in the bank's leadership" is what popped out at me, after "whether the now-collapsed bank took necessary steps to detect potential money laundering by its clients." The article lead includes only "systemic risk" for the closure, only two days after SVB went down, which in its typical use suggests contagion. Any connection is now unclear and it may be just coincidental timing, so I believe a mention in the lead is warranted soibangla (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've got... one original news article talking about the investigation into AML problems (the remainders are "per Bloomberg" or the like). I'm a bit skeptical that we need to immediately add it to the lead rather than waiting to see how additional reporting plays out. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but that one highly reliable source says the bank, not its clients, was under criminal investigation out of both Manhattan and DC. If it was it was just a matter of inadequate money laundering controls, that would be a mere regulatory enforcement. soibangla (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily the case that []if it was it was just a matter of inadequate money laundering controls, that would be a mere regulatory enforcement; there's a lot in the law left up to prosecutorial discretion. What's a bit more important from the Bloomberg report is that [t]he bank and its staff haven’t been accused of wrongdoing, and the investigation could end without further action, so I don't see why we would prominently note the investigation into Signature in the lead. If lots of sources go on and say that this is an important thing in the collapse, then sure, but right now the reporting looks like it's a bank run, causing it to sell off long-term bonds to meet withdrawal requests, and where the NY regulators lost confidence in the bank's ability to move forward financially. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, bank examiners routinely inspect money laundering controls without law enforcement involvement, and certainly not criminal investigations. [t]he bank and its staff haven’t been accused of wrongdoing, and the investigation could end without further action is common boilerplate language. I note the body did not include the word "criminal," which makes a very big difference here. Worlds apart from a civil case. soibangla (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct body didn't include the word criminal at all (it noted that US prosecutors were looking into it, but the SDNY does bring civil cases for financial crimes; does prosecutor refer only to criminal prosecutions?). I am also very aware that AML controls are regularly examined by internal and external auditors without getting law enforcement or regulatory bodies directly involved (some compliance work does require reporting, but that's very different than what's going on here).
That all being said, it's still a jump to go from reporting that explicitly says that there are no accusations of wrongdoing against the bank to saying that this was probably a significant factor in the bank's collapse. Investigations are bad, rattle investors, and may cause squeamish depositors to flee, but none of that info was public at the time of the collapse; I don't see a common sense reason to include it in the lead, nor one that follows from the sources. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short, I disagree, but I'll accede to excluding it for now. soibangla (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Suisse fall

Credit Suisse down 30%. FTSE slump 3.8%. https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/mar/15/credit-suisse-has-shot-itself-in-the-foot-and-wounded-the-global-banking-system What is relevant to this page and what is not is unclear to me. We can't trace market jitters I guess, but these numbers are big. Maybe the question is when do we create a heading "Contagion". Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, there was an edit adding content to the lead providing a but-for cause for Credit Suisse not failing; I don't think the sources actually say this, so I've removed the content from the lead. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other banks down 12 and 9% and, of course bond yields falling.https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/credit-suisse-shares-drop-fresh-record-low-cds-widen-2023-03-15/ Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian says that it only briefly dipped by 30%. Saying it's down 30% would be misleading. Credit Suisse was trending on Twitter earlier today cuz of fears that it too could collapse. Dunno if it should be included unless something actually happens. SWinxy (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Swiss did step in with a fairly large loan to help Credit Suisse (although it's lower than the loan facility given to First Republic Bank by JP Morgan Chase). Something about these sorts of credit lines probably could be mentioned, though I'm not sure the extent we can attribute the Credit Suisse crunch to this; they've been in a bit of trouble for five years. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems their annual report was published Tuesday - bad timing. But BNP Paribas and Societe Generale continue losses today - 12%, 16% over last five days. The Credit Suisse bailout is proving significant I would say, despite their ongoing problems. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If RSs link them together, then it's fine. Juxlos (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CS in talks with UBS re merger 18/03. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/silicon-valley-bank-collapse-what-you-need-know-2023-03-15/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Weekend-Briefing&utm_term=031823 While the events for CS have a different basis, the media seems to link them to the SVB developments. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the media say is situational: "Investors and customers pulled their money out of Credit Suisse over the past several days as turmoil swept the global banking industry following the collapse of two US lenders." (CNN) https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/18/business/credit-suisse-crisis-ubs/index.html The FT refers to a 'crisis in confidence' in bank shares. The CS article has been updated already with 'Collapse' it'll be gone by Monday. Let's discuss how we wrap this in. Market sentiment is the driver. It's not a direct financial link to any US failures. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sentiment: Reuters reporting S+P bank index, SPXBK, down 22% in last two weeks.https://www.reuters.com/business/crunch-time-credit-suisse-talks-ubs-seeks-swiss-assurances-2023-03-19/ Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And down goes Credit Suisse. Bloomberg and Financial Times are reporting that Credit Suisse and UBS have reached a deal. Article under construction at Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS; help would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate to rename this article as "2023 International bank failures", which will allow the inclusion of Credit Suisse recent collapse.--Conrad Kilroy (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or just "2023 bank failures". We'll need to change it. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Credit Suisse was purchased before it went insolvent. The causes of Suisse's collapse (interest rates, withdrawals) are somewhat similar, though they also had problems with their investment arm for a while going back to 2018. If there are global banking repercussions, we should probably cover them somewhere, but I do not think that this article is the best place to have a list of all bank failures globally in 2023. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"March 2023"

I do not see why the month qualifier is of any use:

  • If another bank fails due to related causes with SVB on 1 April, then the title would be inaccurate;
  • No US banks have collapsed in January and February, and the title implies such;

Propose a move back to 2023 United States bank failures. Juxlos (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To date, all of the bank failures, and the bank shut downs, have been in March 2023. However, with the turn of multiple news media sources referring to it as a "banking crises" on 16 March, the more appropriate move might be for the 2023 United States bank failures emphasis to change with a move to 2023 United States banking crisis. The scope of the article now, especially after the First Republic Bank and Credit Suisse interbank and regulator-arranged bailouts is way beyond a mere couple of bank failures. N2e (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think keeping it with the month title, a-la-September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market, makes sense at this point. There are some news publications that are saying that the Fed (and/or ECB) are trying to avoid a banking crisis, but I think that the current title is more precise than either of the titles proposed above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The question for me is whether it remains 'United States' - Credit Suisse rescued and potentially bought out by UBS, is quite big. While the article has rightly mentioned bets on future interest rates in US, the same is happening elsewhere - BoE mentioned by Reuters https://www.reuters.com/business/take-five/global-markets-themes-graphic-2023-03-17/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily-Briefing&utm_term=031723. ECB held unscheduled meeting today to discuss crisis. Banks stocks everywhere are sliding but yes, 'bank failures' for the moment are in US. Arguably CS has 'failed' because it had to be rescued - that's more than a 'liquidity issue'. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "United States" is in the title more or less because the only banks that failed are within the United States. I'm not sure how we'd want to handle Credit Suisse if it were to fail. An article on the collapse of Credit Suisse would be almost certainly warranted if it genuinely fails/gets acquired, but I don't think that sources are describing it as a bank failure (yet). First Republic Bank is also teetering on the edge, it would appear, but the rescue may have prevented its failure. I sincerely hope that future events in the real world do not compel us to remove "March" or "United States" from the title. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The September event was a 3-day affair over a singular liquidity crunch that had (relatively) little long term consequences. A banking crisis rarely cares about the calendar month. We don’t call it the October 1973 oil crisis, after all. Juxlos (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate to rename this article as "2023 International bank failures", which will allow the inclusion of Credit Suisse recent collapse. Conrad Kilroy (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International banking crises

This is no longer merely a topic with a scope of a few US bank failures in about a week of time. Over the 16th and 17th (Thursday & Friday) many major media sources began to describe this as a "banking crises", and not just a few bank failures. The really huge flow of funds—both from a number of central banks and nation state authorities and also from multiple national banks in the "private" sectior (e.g., First Republic) arranged by national bank regulators—as well as the Credit Suisse large European banking crisis that morphed into the UBS acquisition today, has made this a truly international banking crisis. It is now global, and that is clearly the actual scope of this article now. N2e (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proximate cause is unclear, and complex. But it is unquestioned that the Credit Suisse failure is a big European bank failure as a part of this (now global) banking crisis.
The Swiss government/banking authorities violated the usual Swiss law today and wiped out the Credit Suisse equity holders as they forced the "merger"/shutdown of Credit Suisse. This is not some mere "acquisition" by UBS of an attractive banking property; or it would not have needed 100 billion of government support. N2e (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Consensus met. Hadal (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023 United States bank failures → 2023 global banking crisis – Originally proposed as moving this article to 2023 United States banking crisis, the discussion was modified converted to a multi-move request following an emerging consensus to move it to either 2023 global banking crisis or 2023 banking crisis to comply with procedural requirements to notify the target page and to allow further discussion of these two options. For the rationale for the original proposal, and the rationale for the currently proposed titles, see the discussion. Updated following the deletion of 2023 global banking crisis at AfD.BilledMammal (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that a considerable number of reliable, respected sources have begun to refer to the situation as a "banking crisis" as a whole:

  • Bloomberg: Title "Warren Buffett in Contact With Biden Team on Banking Crisis"
  • Financial Times: Title "Central banks announce dollar liquidity measures to ease banking crisis"
  • Reuters: Titled "Australia, NZ dlrs give up rally as concerns over banking crisis linger" (granted, this implies that the crisis is potential, not ongoing)
  • CNN: "Global banking crisis"
  • Australian Financial Review: Titled "US recession risks climb sharply on banking crisis"
  • Wall Street Journal: Titled "The Banking Crisis: A Timeline of Silicon Valley Bank’s Collapse and Other Key Events"

With the Credit Suisse happenings, might also have to remove the "United States" at some point. Even if the entire thing dies down today, the past week or so have certainly been a "crisis" by itself. Juxlos (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - not all the banks involved failed, so crisis would be a more apt descriptor. As for @Red Slash, @Vida0007, and @Osunpokeh
's suggestion that the title be of a more global scope, I am neutral per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. One bank outside the US failed, and it isn't included in the article. Currently, the failure of CS is covered in its own article, though I wouldn't oppose a separate global banking article being created. Crusader1096 (message) 20:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, for now, we should have one article on all the failures, and that eventually, one the dust settles, we can parcel it out to more specific articles if necessary. Red Slash 22:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support some sort of removal from the US. Presently, I'll support 2023 banking crisis for now, but I'd ultimately prefer 2023 bank failures. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it is better to have a single article covering the wider banking crisis because
* The banking crisis seems to be affecting the Western World at its greatest extent, with market shares being messy but not particularly note-worthy. There have been a few articles stating that Asia is doing fine:
* https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/17/fitch-says-asia-pacific-banks.html
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/asia-sees-limited-contagion-risk-from-silicon-valley-bank-s-woes#xj4y7vzkg
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-20/asia-better-placed-than-developed-economies-morgan-stanley-says#xj4y7vzkg
* https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/20/asia-regulators-say-banking-system-is-stable-after-ubs-credit-suisse-deal.html
* https://finance.yahoo.com/news/investors-shaken-banking-crisis-flock-000000083.html
* https://www.pionline.com/markets/contagion-fears-spread-impact-banking-crisis-asia-largely-contained
* https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b8xymxcz30zdt9/Asian-Financials-Have-Weathered-the-Banking-Crisis-Better-Than-Global-Peers
* If you were to plot the banking crises on a graph, the UBS buyout would be the anomaly and outlier, and hence it would not result in the creation of a "global" banking crisis.
* The initial controversy at Credit Suisse was at its First Boston subsidiary HQd in New York, which may have then spread to the rest of the bank, but it originated in the US. While there is a global link, it is still a substantially US problem. UBS is planning to mostly shutter the First Boston operations.

Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because, can't we wait until April before deleting "March" from the title? Also, it's a bit early to say "crisis"; let's see if there really is a crisis. Zaslav (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the article '2023 global banking crisis' is now deleted, we have separate articles on each of the three US banks and we have the CS acquisition article. In the deleted article was some detail about contagion - the word used by WP in the CS acquisition article, but contagion is not restricted to Europe. Whether or not we call it a crisis, the outflow from SVB collapse has caused market correction globally and that's not OR or SYNTH as I have tried to explain. The word 'crisis' is perhaps inaccurate, inflammatory even. We do have a persistent correction (SPXBK and other indexes), liquidity issues and market jitters. I believe it's right to document that in this article, whatever we name it. It should have an overview which includes Europe and Asia. I hope we agree that now 'see 2023 global banking crisis' is redundant we need to do something. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First Republic should be on list

Also failed during period 

85.230.81.92 (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


First Republic has been experiencing a bank run and has not failed, but so have a number of other banks. A key difference is that First Republic has effectively been rescued by other banks but it failed to help the situation. Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the article now moved to 2023 global banking crisis (from its former name which was scope-limited to merely a few US bank "failures"), clearly First Republic Bank is in-scope, and okay to cover in the article, as long as verifiable sources for all statements. Ping 85.230.81.92 — N2e (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Credit crunch

We now have a couple of articles which denote the more fearful scale of the looming financial crisis:

  • Bloomberg is saying that the Federal Reserve has to choose between a hard recession and an inflation crisis.
  • Financial Times is also saying that the Federal Reserve has to deal with a looming credit crunch (which for me seems to hark back to the tone used during the Great Recession)


This is primarily a US banking crisis currently for the following reasons:

  • There have only been notable bank runs and pre bank runs on American banks, except for Credit Suisse which was experiencing trouble stemming from its US headquartered investment banking unit (First Boston) well before the US banking crisis flared up. If you were to plot the incidents on a graph then the Credit Suisse debacle would be viewed as the exception and statistical anomaly, stemming from issues that had been discussed well before the current US banking crisis.
  • The spillover of the banking crisis also seems to be limited to the western world except for notable but not exceptional stock market changes. There have been numerous articles explaining the strength/stability of the banking systems in Asia especially in China, Japan and Singapore... If there were a notable spillover of the banking crisis, it would probably be limited to the western world, and only recession may somewhat overspill into Taiwan/Japan/Korea (as it did with the Great Recession).
  • It also seems to be a shortage of US dollars that are fueling the fear of the credit crunch. The central banks of Asia have been less aggressive with interest rate hikes and hence there is more liquidity available in various other currencies. India and numerous of other countries have also made significant efforts to diversify away from the USD in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war, so there is also less likelihood of the Sri Lanka style crisis because US dollars are now less used in Asia.

Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:OR. Wikipedia does not host user analysis, only explicit statements from other sources. If the Bloomberg or FT sources are worth including, then include, but things that "seem" or "probably will" happen should not. Juxlos (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"several of the world's largest banks

failed or were shut down by regulators"

um...really? soibangla (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. —Alalch E. 18:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Global spread'

Since 'global' is part of the title now should this section be titled 'Contagion'? Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"global banking crisis"

Over my years, both online and IRL, I have encountered individuals who seem to relish the prospect of a global economic apocalypse that takes us back to the Middle Ages. As Michael Caine said in some movie, "some men just want to watch the world burn."

There was a real danger of a global economic calamity in 2008, but I get a sense that the title and tone of this article might reflect some degree of exaggeration and undue panic. By my read, what happened to SVB was a poor management decision to go long on Treasuries to chase yield, and though other banks also went long and have unrealized bond losses, I don't see reporting that it poses a major risk to them. SVB overdid it. In the case of Silvergate/Signature, they were heavy on crypto which was in bigtime turmoil. Credit Suisse had been a basketcase for many years and was a ripe acquisition target, and UBS pounced on the opportunity, brokered by the government.

To be sure, global regulators stood up and took notice, just in case the situation might go contagious like 2008, which they've been on hair-trigger alert for ever since. But by my read, what happened with these banks were unrelated and simply a coincidence of timing. So I wonder if calling it a "global banking crisis" is appropriate, at least at this point. I've made some changes to the lead to reflect this.

Jamie Dimon:

The US bank crisis that rattled global markets last month is probably nearing the end, even if more unforeseen failures occur, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said.[2]

soibangla (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly - what you call 'coincidence of timing' I would say is actually the market, hope you'll agree. Nothing concrete needs to happen for fear to affect the situation, events are not required to be related. Japanese bank stocks went into correction for example. I don't think that should be left out of the picture, but I agree there are differences between now and 2008. However that can be seen simply a matter of degree, it is a crisis for Credit Suisse as well as the US banks. I hope you saw the points made in the discussion about the title above. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC) See this for example - IMF more bearish than Dimon https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/imf-warns-deeper-financial-turmoil-would-slam-global-growth-2023-04-11/ Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 - global banking crisis

see also: source:

Hussmanfunds.com

Edge of the edge - Hussman Funds

John P. Hussman, Ph.D., President Hussman Investment Trust, March 2023 Uazt (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good piece but I don't think we would cite an opinion piece from the author's own website. Same goes for the FT article. Cheers.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

banking 'ecosystem'

Worth posting here I thought, DebtRank is worth mentioning somewhere in this article. But interesting that 'Nature' is source. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01291-8 Could be cited elsewhere I think. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global or U.S.

The term global is grossly overstating, it is a localised U.S. banking crisis affecting a handful of banks. At the very least it should be shortened to '2023 banking crisis' until more information becomes available. 42.105.8.85 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article began as March 2023 United States bank failures, then came the unrelated Credit Suisse failure and some people panicked. soibangla (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I favored "2023 banking crisis" without the word global in the RM. I still support this title.—Alalch E. 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since only US banks have collapsed, it would be proper to state "US".

Requested move 26 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved, per consensus that is unlikely to significantly develop further. New name is appropriately concise. Request posted at WP:RMT. (non-admin closure) — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


2023 global banking crisis → 2023 banking crisis – I was the closing admin for the previous RM (March 20 - April 4). Despite the short interval in time between the RMs, I am nominating this article again due to an increase in interest and scrutiny over the title. While I did not see a problem with the previous RM title, it is clear that a growing number of people are taking issue with it: There is a valid argument to be made that 2023 banking crisis is a more succinct title, and does not diminish the article scope. Note to closer: I am requesting this move as a neutral party. Do not count this nomination as a vote. Henceforth I am recusing myself from making any changes to this article. Hadal (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Global" seems like a misnomer and seems inconsistent with reporting, broader banking issues it is. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_United_States_banking_crisis&oldid=1153117318"