HSBC snaps up UK arm of failed Âߤ¹¿Í Silicon Valley Bank for just ¡ò1 in ´ë¤Æ¡¤ÅØÎÏ¡¤Äó°Æ to ˸¤²¤ë tech ÉôÌç Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë - after more than ¡ò50BILLION was wiped off FTSE ¤Þ¤Ã¤¿¤ÀÃæ¤Ë Á´À¤³¦¤Î ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î panic

  • Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë of tech-¾ÇÅÀ¡Ê¤ò¹ç¤ï¤»¤ë¡Ëd Silicon Valley Bank Ͷȯ¤¹¤ëd ¶²¤ì¤ës across ʽ¤Ç°Ï¤à Street
  • FTSE 100 ¶ì¤·¤àd bigger Íî¤Á¤ës than seen in ±Æ¶Á of September ¾®·¿¤Î-ͽ»»

HSBC has taken over the UK arm of Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ëd Âߤ¹¿Í Silicon Valley Bank for ¡ò1 in a ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äê that Êݸ¤ës more than 3,000 ¸ÜµÒs' deposits and spares taxpayers from Êݼá¡Ê¶â¡Ëing them out.

The ¶ÛµÞ °ú¤­·Ñ¤®¡¿Çã¼ý comes after frantic ²ñÃÌ over the ½µËö ȼ¤¦¡¿´Ø¤ï¤ëing the ¡Ê¥É¥¤¥Ä¤Ê¤É¤Î¡Ë¼óÁê¡¿¡ÊÂç³Ø¤Î¡Ë³ØĹ, the ÁíÍýÂç¿Ã and the Bank of England to ˸¤²¤ë Îós of the tech ÉôÌç from ¸ºß wiped out.

¸ÜµÒs of Silicon Valley Bank UK, some of whom had millions of ³¤±¤¶¤Þ¤ËÌԷ⤹¤ës in deposits, ²óÉü¤¹¤ëd Àܶá to their money yesterday after ¸ºß frozen out.

The ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äê ¹ð¼¨ ¡Êµ¡¤Î¡Ë¥«¥à hours after American Åö¶É moved to ÊÝ¾Ú¡Ê¿Í¡Ë the deposits of the bank's US parent company, which Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ëd on Friday.

¡Ê¥É¥¤¥Ä¤Ê¤É¤Î¡Ë¼óÁê¡¿¡ÊÂç³Ø¤Î¡Ë³ØĹ Jeremy ÄÉÀסʤ¹¤ë¡Ë had ·Ù¹ð¤¹¤ëd over the ½µËö that the UK tech ÉôÌç was at 'serious ´í¸±' from the Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë of SVB UK. He ÀÀÌó¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ëd on Sunday that the À¯ÉÜ would bring º£¸å ¨ºÂ¤Î ·×²è¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ës to help companies banking with the ²ñ¼Ò¡¿·ø¤¤ with their ¨ºÂ¤Î cashflow needs ? such as »Ùʧ¤¦¡¿Ä¶âing staff.

¤ÎÃæ¤Ç those believed to have been frozen out of Àܶáing ´ð¶âs was an IT provider to the NHS.

The deal did not prevent further falls in banking shares with Barclays down 6 per cent, HSBC off by 4 per cent, and Natwest and Lloyds down 5 per cent ? wiping ¡ò50billion off the combined value of the FTSE 100 firms

The ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äê did not ˸¤²¤ë ¤½¤Î¾å¤Î Íî¤Á¤ës in banking ³ô with Barclays É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 6 per cent, HSBC off by 4 per cent, and Natwest and Lloyds É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 5 per cent ? wiping ¡ò50billion off the Ï¢¹ç¤µ¤»¤ëd value of the FTSE 100 ²ñ¼Ò¡¿·ø¤¤s

The collapse of tech-focused Silicon Valley Bank sparked fears across Wall Street that the banking system was being crippled by a relentless cycle of interest rate rises

The Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë of tech-¾ÇÅÀ¡Ê¤ò¹ç¤ï¤»¤ë¡Ëd Silicon Valley Bank Ͷȯ¤¹¤ëd ¶²¤ì¤ës across ʽ¤Ç°Ï¤à Street that the banking system was ¸ºß ¼ê­¤òÉÔ¼«Í³¤Ë¤¹¤ë¡¿¡Êʪ»ö¤ò¡Ë»¤Ê¤¦d by a relentless cycle of Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψ rises

ȯɽ¤¹¤ëing the HSBC ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äê, Mr ÄÉÀסʤ¹¤ë¡Ë said: 'The UK's tech ÉôÌç is genuinely world-¼çÍ×¤Ê and of ÊúÍʤ¹¤ë importance to the British economy, supporting hundreds of thousands of ¿¦¶Ès. I said [on Sunday] that we would look after our tech ÉôÌç, and we have worked ´«¤á¤ë ntly to ÇÛ㤹¤ë on that Ìó« and find a ²òÅú that will ¶¡µë¤¹¤ë SVB UK's ¸ÜµÒs with ¿®ÍÑ¡¿¿®Ç¤.' One Tory MP ½Ò¤Ù¤ëd it as the 'perfect ²òÅú'.

The Bank of England said it 'can ³Îǧ¤¹¤ë that all depositors' money with SVB UK is °ÂÁ´¤Ê and °ÂÁ´¤Ê¡¦Êݾڤ¹¤ë as a result of this ½èÍý¡¿¼è°ú'.

SVB UK had ÂßÉÕ¶âs of around ¡ò5.5billion and deposits of ¡ò6.7billion at the time of its Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë on Friday, HSBC said.

Mr ÄÉÀסʤ¹¤ë¡Ë said the Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë had never Ä󵯤¹¤ë¡¿¥Ý¡¼¥º¤ò¤È¤ëd 'a systemic ´í¸± to our ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î °ÂÄê' but said important Àïά¤Î ²ñ¼Ò¡¿·ø¤¤s could have been wiped out, which would have been '¶Ëü¤Ë dangerous'.

The ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äê did not ˸¤²¤ë ¤½¤Î¾å¤Î Íî¤Á¤ës in banking ³ô with Barclays É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 6 per cent, HSBC off by 4 per cent, and Natwest and Lloyds É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 5 per cent ? wiping ¡ò50billion off the Ï¢¹ç¤µ¤»¤ëd value of the FTSE 100 ²ñ¼Ò¡¿·ø¤¤s.

HSBC has taken over the UK arm of collapsed lender Silicon Valley Bank for ¡ò1 in a deal that protects more than 3,000 customers¡Ç deposits and spares taxpayers from bailing them out

HSBC has taken over the UK arm of Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ëd Âߤ¹¿Í Silicon Valley Bank for ¡ ò1 in a ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äê that Êݸ¤ës more than 3,000 ¸ÜµÒs¡Ç deposits and spares taxpayers from Êݼá¡Ê¶â¡Ëing them out

The ³¤±¤¶¤Þ¤ËÌԷ⤹¤ë was »ý¤Ä¡¿¹´Î±¤¹¤ëing ²ñ¼Ò¡¿·ø¤¤ ¤Ë¤â¤«¤«¤ï¤é¤º the ³ô¼°»Ô¾ì woes and was up by about 1% against the US dollar at 1.215 and up by 0.1% against the euro at 1.1318.

In company news, HSBC saw its ³ô price µñÀ䤹¤ë¡¿Äã²¼¤¹¤ë by more than 4% ¤Ë¤â¤«¤«¤ï¤é¤º ȯɽ¤¹¤ëing it had acquired Silicon Valley Bank's (SVB) UK ¾¦Çä¡¿»Å»ö in the all-important µß½õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë ¼è°ú¡¤¶¨Äê.?

Europe's biggest bank said it paid just ¡ò1 for the troubled bank, ¼¨¤¹ing that regulators were ³Î¿®¤·¤Æ it could easily take on any ´í¸± from SVB UK's ¸ÜµÒs.?

However, its ³ô price ¤Î¶á¤¯¤Ëd 4.1% lower as the ºß¸Ë¡¿³ô was caught up in Åê»ñ²È jitters over the wider banking ÉôÌç.?

°ìÊý¡¿¹ç´Ö, Êݸ±²ñ¼Ò Direct Line ǧ¤á¤ë its 2022 results were 'disappointing' and that the group did not navigate the challenges of ¥¤¥ó¥Õ¥ì¡¼¥·¥ç¥ó and regulatory ²þ³×¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë as ¸ú²ÌŪ¤Ë as it would have liked.?

The group Êó¹ð¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë¡¿²±Â¬d a ½½Ê¬¤Ê year pre-ÀǶâ loss of ¡ò45 million against sharp ¡Ê¿ÍÌ¿¤Ê¤É¤ò¡ËÃ¥¤¦¡¤¼çÄ¥¤¹¤ës ¥¤¥ó¥Õ¥ì¡¼¥·¥ç¥ó, ÆÃ¤Ë across its ¥â¡¼¥¿¡¼ arm.?

Its ³ô price ¤Î¶á¤¯¤Ëd 4.8% lower. The biggest risers on the FTSE 100 were ÅØÎϤ¹¤ë ºÎ·¡, up 70p to 1,720p, Fresnillo, up 25.2p to 747.4p, Severn Trent, up 58p to 2,824p, Convatec Group, up 3.8p to 220.6p, and ³¤·³Âç¾­ Group, up 30.5p to 1,912p.?

The biggest fallers on the FTSE were ´ð½à ¼Ú¤êÀڤ롿·û¾Ïd, É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 51p to 688.8p, Barclays, É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 9.94p to 147.48p, Beazley, É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 36.5p to 545p, Ashtead Group, É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 340p to 5,192p, and Ocado Group, É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë 27.3p to 423.8p.

Silicon Valley Bank Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë: Everything you need to know

Why did Silicon Valley Bank fail??

Silicon Valley Bank had already been ¹¶·â¤¹¤ë¡¤¾×Æͤ¹¤ë hard by a rough patch for ²Ê³Ø¡Ê¹©³Ø¡Ëµ»½Ñ companies in ºÇ¶á¤Î months and the Ϣˮ¤Î Reserve's ÀѶËŪ¤Ê ·×²è¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë to Áý²Ã¤¹¤ë Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψs to ÀïÆ® ¥¤¥ó¥Õ¥ì¡¼¥·¥ç¥ó ¹½Æâ¡¿²½¹çʪd its problems.?

The bank held billions of dollars ²ÁÃ͡ʤ¬¤¢¤ë¡Ë of ºâ̳¾Ês and other ¼ÒºÄs, which is typical for most banks as they are considered °ÂÁ´¤Ê Åê»ñs.?

However, the value of °ÊÁ° ÌäÂ꡿ȯ¹Ô¤¹¤ëd ¼ÒºÄs has begun to Íî¤Á¤ë because they »Ùʧ¤¦¡¿Ä¶â lower Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψs than Îà»÷¤Î ¼ÒºÄs ÌäÂ꡿ȯ¹Ô¤¹¤ëd in today's higher Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψ ´Ä¶­.?

Such ¼ÒºÄs are not sold for a loss unless there is an ¶ÛµÞ and the bank needs cash. Silicon Valley, the bank that Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ëd on Friday, had an ¶ÛµÞ.?

Its ¸ÜµÒs were ÂçÉôʬ¤Ï start-ups and other tech-centric companies that needed more cash over the past year, so they began ¿È¤ò°ú¤¯ing their deposits.?

That ·³Ââd the bank to sell a chunk of its ¼ÒºÄs at a Ë¡³°¤Ê loss, and the pace of those űÂàs ²Ã®¤¹¤ëd as word spread, ¸ú²ÌŪ¤Ë ¡ÊȽ·è¤Ê¤É¤ò¡Ë²¼¤¹ing Silicon Valley Bank insolvent.?

What did the À¯ÉÜ do on Sunday??

The Ϣˮ¤Î Reserve, the US ºâ̳¾Ê Department, and the Ϣˮ¤Î Deposit Êݸ± ²ñ¼Ò¡¿ÃÄÂÎ (FDIC) decided to ÊÝ¾Ú¡Ê¿Í¡Ë all deposits at Silicon Valley Bank, ƱÍÍ¤Ë as at New York's ½ð̾ Bank, which was ÄϤàd on Sunday.?

ÈãȽŪ¤Ë, they agreed to ÊÝ¾Ú¡Ê¿Í¡Ë all deposits, above and beyond the ¸Â³¦ on insured deposits of 250,000 dollars (¡ò205,000).?

Man y of Silicon Valley's start-up tech ¸ÜµÒs and Å굡¡¦ÅÒ¤±¤ë »ñËܼçµÁ¼Ôs had far more than 250,000 dollars at the bank.?

As a result, as much as 90% of Silicon Valley's deposits were uninsured. Without the À¯ÉÜ's ·èÄ꡿ȽÄ꾡¤Á¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë to backstop them all, many companies would have lost ´ð¶âs needed to ²ñ¹ç¡¤²ñ¤¦ payroll, »Ùʧ¤¦¡¿Ä¶â Ë¡°Æs, and keep the lights on.?

The goal of the ³ÈÂ礹¤ëd Êݾڡʿ͡Ës is to ²óÈò¤¹¤ë bank runs - where ¸ÜµÒs µÞ¤° to ½üµî¤¹¤ë their money - by ÀßΩ¤¹¤ëing the Fed's ¤«¤«¤ï¤ê¹ç¤¤ to Êݸ¤ëing the deposits of ¾¦Çä¡¿»Å»ös and individuals and ÀŤá¤ëing ¿À·Ðs after a harrowing few days.?

Also late on Sunday, the Ϣˮ¤Î Reserve »Ï¤á¤ëd a Éý¤Î¹­¤¤ ¶ÛµÞ lending programme ¡¼¤¹¤ë¤Ä¤â¤ê¤Ç¤¢¤ëd to shore up ¿®ÍÑ¡¿¿®Ç¤ in the nation's ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î system.?

Banks will be µö¤¹d to borrow money straight from the Fed ¡¼¤¹¤ë¤¿¤á¤Ë cover any ²ÄǽÀ­¤Î¤¢¤ë µÞ¤° of ¸ÜµÒ űÂàs without ¸ºß ·³Ââd into the type of money-losing ¼ÒºÄ sales that would ¶¼¤¹ their ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î °ÂÄê.?

Such ²ò¸Û¤¹¤ë¡¿Ë¤²Ð¡¿¼Í·â sales are what ¸¶°ø¡Ê¤È¤Ê¤ë¡Ëd Silicon Valley Bank's Êø²õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë. If all ºîÉÊ as planned, the ¶ÛµÞ lending programme may not ¸½¼Â¤Ë have to lend much money.?

Rather, it will °Â¿´¤µ¤»¤ë the public that the Fed will cover their deposits and that it is willing to lend big to do so. There is no cap on the ÎÌ that banks can borrow, other than their ability to ¶¡µë¤¹¤ë collateral.

How is the programme ¡¼¤¹¤ë¤Ä¤â¤ê¤Ç¤¢¤ëd to work??

Unlike its more byzantine À®²Ì¡¿ÅØÎÏs to µß½õ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë the banking system during the ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î ´íµ¡ of 2007-08, the Fed's approach this time is Èæ³Ó¤·¤Æ straightforward. It has »Ï¤á¤ë¡¤·è¤á¤ë up a new lending »ÜÀß with the bureaucratic moniker Bank ¾Î¤¹¤ë¡¤¸Æ¤Ö¡¿´ü´Ö¡¿ÍÑ¸ì ´ð¶âing Programme.?

The programme will ¶¡µë¤¹¤ë ÂßÉÕ¶âs to banks, credit uni ons, and other ºâÀ¯¾å¤Î ²ñ¡¦¸¶Â§s for up to a year. The banks are ¸ºß asked to ÃÏ°Ì¡¤Ç¤Ì¿¤¹¤ë ºâ̳¾Ês and other À¯ÉÜ-»Ù±ç¤¹¤ëd ¼ÒºÄs as collateral.?

The Fed is ¸ºß generous in its ¾ò·ï: It will ¹ðȯ¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë¡¤¹ðÁʡʤ¹¤ë¡Ë¡¿ÎÁ¶â a Èæ³Ó¤·¤Æ low Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψ - just 0.1 ɴʬΨ points higher than market Ψs - and it will lend against the ³ÛÌ̲Á³Ê of the ¼ÒºÄs, rather than the market value.?

Lending against the ³ÛÌ̲Á³Ê of ¼ÒºÄs is a ½ÅÍ×¤Ê ½àÈ÷¡¿¾ò¹à that will µö¤¹ banks to borrow more money because the value of those ¼ÒºÄs, at least on paper, has fallen as Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψs have moved higher.?

As of the end of last year US banks held ºâ̳¾Ês and other °ÂÁ´s with about 620 billion dollars (¡ò509 billion) of unrealised losses, ¤Ë¤è¤ì¤Ð the FDIC. That means they would take ÊúÍʤ¹¤ë losses if ·³Ââd to sell those °ÂÁ´s to cover a µÞ¤° of űÂàs.?

How did the banks ·ë¶ÉºÇ¸å¤Ë¤Ï¡¼¤Ê¤ë with such big losses??

Ironically, a big chunk of that 620 billion dollars in unrealised losses can be tied to the Ϣˮ¤Î Reserve's own Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψ À¯ºös over the past year.?

In its fight to ÎäÀŤʡ¿ÀµÌ£¤Î the economy and bring É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë ¥¤¥ó¥Õ¥ì¡¼¥·¥ç¥ó, the Fed has ®¤¯ ²¡¤·¿Ê¤á¤ëd up its ¡ÊȽÃǤΡ˴ð½à Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψ from nearly ̵ to about 4.6%.?

That has ´ÖÀÜ¤Ë ²ò½ü¤¹¤ëd the »º¤¹¤ë¡¿À¸¤¸¤ë, or Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ paid, on a ÈÏ°Ï of À¯ÉÜ ¼ÒºÄs, ÆÃ¤Ë two-year ºâ̳¾Ês, which topped 5% until the end of last week.?

When new ¼ÒºÄs arrive with higher Íø±×¡¿¶½Ì£ Ψs, it makes ¸ºß¤¹¤ëing ¼ÒºÄs with lower »º¤¹¤ë¡¿À¸¤¸¤ës much ¤¤¤Ã¤½¤¦¾¯¤Ê¤¯ ²ÁÃͤΤ¢¤ë if they must be sold.?

Banks are not ·³Ââd to recognise such losses on their Ä´½ñ¤ò¤È¤ë¡¿Í½Ì󤹤ës until they sell those »ñ»ºs, which Silicon Valley was ·³Ââd to do. -

How impor tant are the À¯ÉÜ Êݾڡʿ͡Ës??

They are very important. ¹çˡŪ¤Ë, the FDIC is Í׵᤹¤ëd to Äɵ᤹¤ë the cheapest Â羡¤¹¤ë when winding É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë a bank.?

In the »öÎã¡¿´µ¼Ô of Silicon Valley or ½ð̾, that would have meant sticking to »ÙÇÛ¤¹¤ës on the Ä´½ñ¤ò¤È¤ë¡¿Í½Ì󤹤ës, meaning that only the first 250,000 dollars in depositors' accounts would be covered.?

Going beyond the 250,000 dollar cap Í׵᤹¤ëd a ·èÄ꡿ȽÄ꾡¤Á¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë that the ¼ºÇÔ of the two banks Ä󵯤¹¤ë¡¿¥Ý¡¼¥º¤ò¤È¤ëd a 'systemic ´í¸±'.?

The Fed's six-member board Á´°÷°ìÃ×¤Ç reached that ·ëÏÀ. The FDIC and the ºâ̳¾Ê Ĺ´± went along with the ·èÄ꡿ȽÄ꾡¤Á¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë ƱÍͤË.

Will these programmes spend taxpayer dollars??

The US says that Êݾڡʿ͡Ëing the deposits will not Í׵᤹¤ë any taxpayer ´ð¶âs. Instead, any losses from the FDIC's Êݸ± ´ð¶â would be Êä½¼¤¹¤ëd by ħ¼ý¤¹¤ëing an Éղà ÎÁ¶â on banks.?

Yet Krishna Guha, an ʬÀÏ²È with the Åê»ñ bank Evercore ISI, said that political Âй³¼Ôs will argue that the higher FDIC ÎÁ¶âs will 'ºÇ½ªÅª¤Ë Íî¤Á¤ë on small banks and Main Street ¾¦Çä¡¿»Å»ö'.?

That, in theory, could cost ¾ÃÈñ¼Ôs and ¾¦Çä¡¿»Å»ös in the long run.?

Will it all work??

Mr Guha and other ʬÀϲÈs say that the À¯ÉÜ's ÊÖÅú is expansive and should stabilise the banking system, though ³ô prices for medium-sized banks, Îà»÷¤Î to Silicon Valley and ½ð̾, µÞÍî¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë¡¤·ã¸º¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ëd on Monday.?

Paul Ashworth, an ·ÐºÑ³Ø¼Ô at »ñËÜ¡¿¼óÅÔ ·ÐºÑŪ¤Ês, said the Fed's lending programme means banks should be able to 'ride out the Íò¡¿½±·â¤¹¤ë'.

The comments below have not been ²º·ò¤Êd.

The ¸«²ò¡Ê¤ò¤È¤ë¡Ës ɽÌÀ¤¹¤ëd in the contents above are those of our »ÈÍѼÔs and do not ¤ä¤à¤òÆÀ¤º È¿±Ç¤¹¤ë the ¸«²ò¡Ê¤ò¤È¤ë¡Ës of MailOnline.

We are no longer ¼õÂ÷¤¹¤ëing comments on this article.