Day: March 19, 2023

SBNY – Signature Bank Bought By New York Community Bancorp After Sudden Collapse

Topline

New York Community Bancorp has acquired Signature Bank and assumed most of its deposits, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced Sunday evening, one week after crypto-friendly Signature Bank and tech-focused Silicon Valley Bank both collapsed in the span of a few days—sending shockwaves through the U.S. financial system.

Key Facts

New York Community Bancorp’s subsidiary Flagstar Bank will operate Signature Bank’s 40 branches starting Monday, and the vast majority of Signature’s $88.6 billion in deposits will automatically head to Flagstar, though about $4 billion in digital banking deposits weren’t included in the sale and will still be handled by the FDIC.

The company also bought $38.4 billion worth of loans and other assets previously held by Signature, though some $60 billion in loans will remain with the FDIC, which took over Signature after it was shut down by New York state regulators last weekend.

The FDIC says Signature’s collapse will cost the federal Deposit Insurance Fund—which is funded by payments from banks—roughly $2.5 billion.

Key Background

The collapse of New York-based Signature Bank—which had $110 billion in assets last year—marked the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history, after Washington Mutual’s failure in 2008 and Silicon Valley Bank’s failure just two days before Signature was shut down. A regional bank, Signature became known for its unusual willingness to work with cryptocurrency industry customers, and although it began pivoting away from crypto last year, a recent plunge in crypto prices harmed the bank, especially after crypto-friendly Silvergate Bank failed earlier this month. Signature Bank was also pulled down by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, facing a surge in withdrawals after SVB failed, the New York Times reported. Last weekend, the FDIC assumed responsibility for Signature and SVB and promised to safeguard all deposits in both banks, even if they exceed the $250,000 per account normally insured by the federal government, a sweeping action designed to prevent a broader crisis in the rest of the U.S. banking system.

Surprising Fact

One of Signature Bank’s board members was former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the architects of the Dodd-Frank bank regulations. Frank told Bloomberg he thinks regulators in New York “singled out” Signature Bank, shutting it down to “send a message to get people away from crypto.” The New York Department of Financial Services rejected this claim, telling multiple news outlets it forced Signature to shut down because it “failed to provide reliable and consistent data, creating a significant crisis of confidence in the bank’s leadership.”

Big Number

$90 billion. That was New York Community Bancorp’s total assets as of December, making it the 35th largest commercial bank in the United States. The company—which operates in greater New York City, the Midwest, Florida and Arizona—acquired Michigan-based Flagstar Bank last year.

What We Don’t Know

Whether tech-focused Silicon Valley Bank will also find a buyer. SVB was among the 20 largest U.S. banks before its collapse, which came after rising interest rates eroded the value of its assets and sparked a massive bank run. The FDIC has reportedly struggled to sell the bank in one piece, leading it to consider selling SVB’s wealth management division and most of its assets and liabilities separately, Bloomberg reported Sunday.

SBNY – Signature Bank Deposits Bought By New York Community Bancorp After Sudden Collapse

Topline

New York Community Bancorp has acquired Signature Bank and assumed most of its deposits, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced Sunday evening, one week after crypto-friendly Signature Bank and tech-focused Silicon Valley Bank both collapsed in the span of a few days—sending shockwaves through the U.S. financial system.

Key Facts

New York Community Bancorp’s subsidiary Flagstar Bank will operate Signature Bank’s 40 branches starting Monday, and the vast majority of Signature’s $88.6 billion in deposits will automatically head to Flagstar, though about $4 billion in digital banking deposits weren’t included in the sale and will still be handled by the FDIC.

The company also bought $38.4 billion worth of loans and other assets previously held by Signature, though some $60 billion in loans will remain with the FDIC, which took over Signature after it was shut down by New York state regulators last weekend.

The FDIC says Signature’s collapse will cost the federal Deposit Insurance Fund—which is funded by payments from banks—roughly $2.5 billion.

Key Background

The collapse of New York-based Signature Bank—which had $110 billion in assets last year—marked the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history, after Washington Mutual’s failure in 2008 and Silicon Valley Bank’s failure just two days before Signature was shut down. A regional bank, Signature became known for its unusual willingness to work with cryptocurrency industry customers, and although it began pivoting away from crypto last year, a recent plunge in crypto prices harmed the bank, especially after crypto-friendly Silvergate Bank failed earlier this month. Signature Bank was also pulled down by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, facing a surge in withdrawals after SVB failed, the New York Times reported. Last weekend, the FDIC assumed responsibility for Signature and SVB and promised to safeguard all deposits in both banks, even if they exceed the $250,000 per account normally insured by the federal government, a sweeping action designed to prevent a broader crisis in the rest of the U.S. banking system.

Surprising Fact

One of Signature Bank’s board members was former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the architects of the Dodd-Frank bank regulations. Frank told Bloomberg he thinks regulators in New York “singled out” Signature Bank, shutting it down to “send a message to get people away from crypto.” The New York Department of Financial Services rejected this claim, telling multiple news outlets it forced Signature to shut down because it “failed to provide reliable and consistent data, creating a significant crisis of confidence in the bank’s leadership.”

Big Number

$90 billion. That was New York Community Bancorp’s total assets as of December, making it the 35th largest commercial bank in the United States. The company—which operates in greater New York City, the Midwest, Florida and Arizona—acquired Michigan-based Flagstar Bank last year.

What We Don’t Know

Whether tech-focused Silicon Valley Bank will also find a buyer. SVB was among the 20 largest U.S. banks before its collapse, which came after rising interest rates eroded the value of its assets and sparked a massive bank run. The FDIC has reportedly struggled to sell the bank in one piece, leading it to consider selling SVB’s wealth management division and most of its assets and liabilities separately, Bloomberg reported Sunday.

HLIT – Harmonic Remains Well-Positioned With Its Tech Leadership

Video on demand menu on TV

demaerre/iStock via Getty Images

Thesis

The demand for broadband infrastructure has been strong in 2022 and is predicted to continue in 2023. Harmonic (NASDAQ:HLIT) is well-positioned to enter the new year with a growing tier 1 customer base

HLIT stock price movement YTD

HLIT stock price movement YTD (Seeking Alpha)

US Telco CAPEX

US Telco CAPEX (S&P Global)

HLIT's 2025 target for SaaS

HLIT’s 2025 target for SaaS (Company Presentation)

HLIT historical gross profit margin and revenue growth

HLIT historical gross profit margin and revenue growth (YCharts)

HLIT valuation multiple vs Peers

HLIT valuation multiple vs Peers (YCharts)

SIVB – Silicon Valley Bank’s parent company cut off from bank’s records

March 19 (Reuters) – SVB Financial (SIVB.O), the bankrupt parent company of Silicon Valley Bank, has lost access to its financial records after the bank was placed into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), according to court documents filed in Manhattan on Sunday.

SVB Financial is exploring options, including a potential bankruptcy sale, for its venture capital and investment banking businesses, which were not included in the FDIC’s takeover of SVB. But its Chapter 11 bankruptcy has gotten off to a “challenging” start due to a breakdown in cooperation with the bridge bank set up to take over SVB’s business, according to a declaration filed Sunday by SVB Financial Chief Restructuring Officer William Kosturos in U.S. bankruptcy court.

SVB Financial has no employees of its own, and the new bank’s employees “cut off access” to a substantial portion of SVB Financial’s “books, records, files, electronic systems and key employees,” according to Kosturos.

Kosturos said SVB Financial is working to re-establish access.

SVB Financial filed for bankruptcy protection on Friday, about a week after California banking regulators closed Silicon Valley Bank in the largest U.S. bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis.

The FDIC is attempting to sell SVB and may seek a breakup of the failed lender.

The FDIC receivership removed SVB Financial’s primary source of liquidity and most of its business infrastructure, as well as triggering defaults on SVB Financial’s debt, forcing the company into bankruptcy, according to court documents.

SVB Financial’s court filings listed $19 billion in assets, $2.2 billion in cash and cash equivalents, and $3.4 billion in liabilities. About $15.5 billion of SVB Financial’s asset value was attributed to the SVB banking business that was seized by regulators.

SVB Capital, the venture capital and credit investment arm of the company, manages about $9.5 billion in other investors’ money spread across 30 pooled investment funds, according to Kosturos’ declaration.

Those investment funds include direct venture funds that invest in companies, funds-of-funds that invest in other venture capital funds, and debt funds that provide lending and other financing solutions to startups.

SVB Securities is an investment bank that provides financial services to healthcare and technology companies, according to Kosturos’ declaration.

In its court filings on Sunday, SVB Financial also made several requests intended to continue smooth operation of its business during its bankruptcy, such as asking for permission to maintain its existing bank accounts and to continue paying for services provided by SVB employees.

Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Chris Reese

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

OXY – Occidental Petroleum: Even Buffett Bought Too Soon (Rating Downgrade)

FORTUNE Most Powerful Women Summit - Day 2

Paul Morigi

After multiple warnings to investors that one shouldn’t overpay for Occidental Petroleum Corporation (NYSE:OXY), even Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B, BRK.A) overpaid for the stock. The independent energy company now faces

Finviz Chart

Source: Finviz

Finviz chart

Source: Finviz

WTI chart

Source: OilPrice.com

Chart
Data by YCharts

FRC – First Republic Bank Looms Large for U.S. Regulators After Credit Suisse Sale


First Republic’s stock is down more than 80% in March.

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

U.S. policy makers warily watched the rushed rescue of
Credit Suisse
Group AG over the weekend, hoping that its purchase by
UBS Group AG
would stem a slide in financial stocks triggered by the recent collapse of two regional banks.

Late Sunday, the Fed and five major central banks announced a coordinated effort to improve liquidity by moving U.S. dollars among themselves each day, starting Monday, instead of once a week. The central banks then lend those dollars out to financial institutions, in an effort to backstop other countries’ funding needs should strains emerge in global markets.

As jittery markets prepare to open Monday, U.S. officials’ main concern is
First Republic Bank,
which required rescue funding last week from a group of the nation’s biggest banks. Whether First Republic and other regional lenders stabilize in coming days will dictate whether additional private or government assistance is needed for banks.

In Switzerland, crumbling confidence prompted the sale of Credit Suisse for more than $3 billion. Regulators globally worried that a collapse of Credit Suisse, a systemically important financial institution, could reverberate among large banks in a number of countries. In the U.S., the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, which includes officials from the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department, met to monitor the situation.

After the Credit Suisse takeover was announced Sunday, Treasury Secretary

Janet Yellen
and Fed Chair

Jerome Powell
welcomed the deal while also trying to reassure U.S. investors. “The capital and liquidity positions of the U.S. banking system are strong, and the U.S. financial system is resilient,” the two said in a joint statement.

In the U.S., First Republic has become the latest pressure point. Its stock has fallen more than 80% in March. Customers have pulled some $70 billion in deposits, almost 40% of its total, according to people familiar with the matter. But the withdrawals stabilized Friday, after the country’s biggest banks came to its aid, the people said.

That slowdown and the $30 billion in new deposits from 11 of the biggest banks gave First Republic a chance to consider its future options.

“First Republic Bank is well-positioned to manage short-term deposit activity,” a bank spokesman said Sunday.

Regulators, too, were relatively quiet over the weekend, worried that after two weeks of intervention in the banking sector, too much more activity, too soon, would signal to skittish markets that the regulatory work done so far was insufficient. Further action, at the current juncture, might also discourage potential suitors for the struggling bank.

First Republic had discussed with advisers other potential solutions, such as an equity sale, before the bank rescue. Such options remain on the table, the people said. While bankers this weekend continued to debate potential next steps, no deal seemed imminent. First Republic’s leaders are hoping to prove the rescue deal stabilized the lender and avoid fire-sale prices, the people said.


Janet Yellen at a Senate Finance Committee hearing last week. The U.S. Treasury secretary welcomed the UBS takeover of Credit Suisse on Sunday.

Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg News

Still, with the stock down sharply Friday and analysts warning the rescue plan didn’t patch a hole in the bank’s balance sheet, investors and analysts are questioning how stable First Republic is and for how long it can hold out.

Analysts said First Republic still needs to raise funds or sell itself because it is sitting on losses similar to the ones that helped sink Silicon Valley Bank earlier this month. For instance, Wedbush analysts said any acquirer would have to fill a $13.5 billion capital hole at First Republic.

On Sunday, S&P Global Ratings cut the credit rating on First Republic for the second time in the past week.

How First Republic fares in the markets could determine whether the biggest banks, including
JPMorgan Chase
& Co.,
Bank of America Corp.
,
Citigroup Inc.
and
Wells Fargo

& Co., have managed to stem the panic that has gripped the banking system this month. And it will play a role in how the market tumult ultimately affects broader economic activity.

The market’s reaction to developments at First Republic and Credit Suisse could influence how the Federal Reserve approaches its rate-setting meeting this week, where officials face a finely balanced decision over whether to raise interest rates by a quarter-percentage point or to forgo an increase altogether.

Fed officials have raised rates rapidly to slow the economy and fight inflation by tightening financial conditions, such as by lifting borrowing rates and pushing down asset prices. A significant question at their two-day meeting, which ends Wednesday, is how much additional tightening they expect to get from the markets turmoil and the banking sector.

Central-bank officials who say financial conditions are at greater risk of tightening abruptly because of the banking shock could favor holding steady their benchmark rate, currently in a range between 4.5% and 4.75%. Those who see the effects as more likely to be temporary, contained or modest could argue for pressing ahead with the next increase, aimed at cooling the economy, amid still-high inflation.

Meanwhile, the Fed, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Biden administration continue to study the question of whether and when they might have to seek to provide further assistance to the banking industry, in particular smaller lenders.

For the moment, regulators were inclined to wait and see how First Republic and its peers fare in markets early this week. The calculus was that while First Republic is weak, it is still viable. So action by the Fed or government could be seen as overreacting and hinder private-sector solutions, which would be the preferred outcome.

Last week, for example, senior Biden administration officials talked with billionaire investor

Warren Buffett
as the banking crisis intensified. It wasn’t immediately clear what was discussed; Mr. Buffett didn’t respond to requests for comment and the Treasury declined to comment.

On Sunday, House Financial Services Committee Chairman

Patrick McHenry
(R., N.C.) told CBS News that major U.S. banks buying up smaller troubled lenders is a possible solution to ensure that Americans continue to have confidence in the financial system.

“I think all options should be on the table. That’s what I’m considering legislatively, that’s what I would encourage the administration to consider as well,” Mr. McHenry said.

Although policy makers prefer private action, there continue to be calls for bolder, broader steps, especially regarding bank deposits. On Friday, the Mid-Size Bank Coalition of America urged regulators to immediately guarantee all deposits in the U.S. for two years. In a letter, the group said deposits are leaving banks of all sizes and flooding into the four biggest banks, putting everyone at risk of a wider panic.

“Should another bank fail it is very possible that customer panic will set off a string of failures due to depositor bank runs regardless of the financial condition of the underlying banks,” the group wrote.

—Nick Timiraos, Andrew Restuccia, Rachel Louise Ensign, Ben Eisen and AnnaMaria Andriotis contributed to this article.

CGNT – ROSEN, TOP RANKED NATIONAL INVESTOR ATTORNEYS, Encourages Cognyte Software Ltd. Investors With Losses in Excess of $100K to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action – CGNT

NEW YORK, March 19, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — 

WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Cognyte Software Ltd. (NASDAQ: CGNT) between February 2, 2021 and June 28, 2022, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important May 1, 2023 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Cognyte securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Cognyte class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12578 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 1, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class misled investors and/or failed to disclose that Cognyte created, distributed, and provided reconnaissance tools and services that violated community standards and terms of service of communication network sources and technologies, such as Facebook, exposing the Company to significant financial and reputational risk. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Cognyte class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12578 mailto:or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or [email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      [email protected]
      [email protected]
      [email protected]
      www.rosenlegal.com

SOURCE Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

SCHW – Charles Schwab Customers Deposit $16.5 Billion During Banking Crisis

Charles Schwab says it saw “strong inflows” from clients amid this month’s banking crisis.

Between March 10 and March 16, customers brought $16.5 billion in deposits, the brokerage firm announced Friday (March 17).

That period coincides with the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank on March 10 and Signature Bank March 12 and the days of worry in the financial sector that those failures could spread to the larger financial system.

“Charles Schwab remains a safe port in a storm, driven by its conservative balance sheet, strong liquidity position, and diversified base of over 34 million account holders,” the company said in a news release. “We are confident in our approach and in our ability to help clients through all kinds of economic environments.”

The failure of SVB shows the importance of diversification, Drew Edwards, CEO at money mobility payments company Ingo Money, told PYMNTS last week.

“[The SVB collapse] had a lot to do with their heavily concentrated customer base,” Edwards said. “And it was also a small, tight-knit community connected to each other online and communicating in channels all day long that enabled such a quick run for the door.”

An obvious outcome of all this is likely a trend where companies begin to think about dividing their business across multiple banks, regardless of how strong the banks are.

“This can be done but will create inefficiencies unless their partners are set up to split volume across sponsor banks, which we already do in our business,” Edwards said.

He added that if he had a billion dollars, he wouldn’t keep it in just one place, saying, “I can’t stand single points of failure anywhere in our value chain.”

Treasury Prime CEO Chris Dean echoed that sentiment in a separate conversation last week with PYMNTS’ Karen Webster.

“There’s the concentration risk, which we’re all seeing now,” said Dean. “There’s the operational burden. And you have to get those things right. It’s clear to me that there’s not a single bank in the U.S. that can do that — but the U.S. banking system can.”

Of banking as a whole, he said, “There are a lot of different regulators, and different banks — and they’re held together in a cohesive whole.” His company’s aim, Dean told Webster, is to make that cohesiveness available in a streamlined manner for FinTechs.

That was the thinking behind Treasury Prime’s recent launch of OneKey Banking, an embedded finance application programming interface (API) that lets FinTechs and enterprises pick the best banking partner for a particular product or service.

SIVB – Fed Raised Concerns About SVB’s Risk Management in 2019


SVB got numerous warnings from the central bank over time.

Photo: Preston Gannaway for The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON—The Federal Reserve raised concerns about risk management at Silicon Valley Bank starting at least four years before its failure earlier this month, documents show.

In January 2019, the Fed issued a warning to
SVB
over its risk-management systems, according to a presentation circulated last year to employees of SVB’s venture-capital arm, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal. 

The Fed issued what it calls a Matter Requiring Attention, a type of citation that is less severe than an enforcement action. Regulators are supposed to make sure the problem is addressed, but it couldn’t be learned if the Fed held SVB to that standard in 2019.

Over time, the central bank issued numerous warnings to SVB, suggesting the bank’s problems were on the radar of the Fed, the bank’s primary federal regulator. A central-bank review of its oversight of SVB is due by May.

An SVB spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The San Francisco Fed, which shared jurisdiction over the bank with the Fed board in Washington, didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

SVB’s implosion was the second-biggest bank failure in American history. Its collapse marks the biggest test to date of the post-financial-crisis regulatory architecture designed to force banks to curtail risk and monitor it more closely. 

Risks to SVB’s financial condition were apparent for months before its failure. The bank’s parent company disclosed that the market value of its held-to-maturity bonds was $15.9 billion less than their balance-sheet value at the end of September 2022. That gap was slightly more than SVB’s $15.8 billion of total equity at the time. 

SVB’s large and concentrated number of uninsured depositors began to flee after the bank announced a capital raise and the sale of a large amount of securities at a loss. Former officials say the regulator’s rules treat such deposits as relatively stable, since they typically signal a longstanding business relationship.

Officials are seeking to contain the fallout from the failure of the Santa Clara, Calif., bank and a second firm, Signature Bank, which regulators said posed a threat to the financial system. Top U.S. banks said Thursday they would deposit $30 billion of their money into a third lender, First Republic Bank, after it faced a falling stock price and fleeing depositors.

Examiners had raised concern about SVB’s portfolio of securities, which lost significant value as the central bank raised interest rates. The bank was also seen as an unusual case for the banking regulators because its customers were so concentrated in venture-capital and tech startups, officials said.

The Fed applies more stringent rules to bigger banks, so SVB’s rapid growth over the past few years likely would have moved the bank into a progressively tougher form of supervision from the regulator. 

Following the 2019 warning, the Fed informed SVB in 2020 that its system to control risk didn’t meet the expectations for a large financial institution, or a bank holding company with more than $100 billion in assets, the presentation to employees at SVB’s venture-capital arm said. 

Large banks that don’t meet the Fed’s expectations are supposed to take corrective action to fix the problems or potentially face enforcement actions.

At that time, the bank was growing quickly as deposits poured in during the early months of the pandemic. The average level of interest-earning assets grew 76% in the first quarter of 2021, compared with the same period one year earlier, the presentation said.  

The Fed’s criticism of SVB’s risk-management systems raises the question of “why were they allowed to double their size after that,” said Keith Noreika, an executive vice president at Patomak Global Partners who served as acting Comptroller of the Currency in 2017. 

Write to Andrew Ackerman at andrew.ackerman@wsj.com and Dave Michaels at dave.michaels@wsj.com

SIVB – Fed had expressed its concerns over Silicon Valley Bank for a year: report

The U.S. Federal Reserve had been worried about Silicon Valley Bank’s risky practices for more than a year before its collapse this month, according to new reports, and had repeatedly warned the bank.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, the New York Times reported Sunday that serious weaknesses were found in a 2021 Fed review concerning how the bank handled its risks, issuing six citations. Despite those urgent calls to address problems, Silicon Valley Bank did not address the vulnerabilities, the Times reported.

Separately Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported the Fed’s worries about SVB’s risk management dated back to 2019. The Journal also reported that in 2020, the Fed warned SVB that its risk controls did not meet expectations for large financial institutions. At the time, the bank was undergoing rapid growth during the early stages of the pandemic.

Also see: Here’s why UBS’s deal to buy Credit Suisse matters to U.S. investors

A full supervisory review of the bank by the San Francisco Fed was in effect by July 2022, the Times reported, in which it was rated deficient for its governance and controls. Restrictions were reportedly imposed on the bank, and SVB leaders and Fed officials talked last fall about how the bank could access cash in a crisis amid a rising-interest-rate environment, the Times said.

By early this year, the Times reported, SVB was under a “horizontal review” by the Fed, to test the strength of its risk management — and additional deficiencies were reported. Soon after, there was a run on the bank’s funds and it collapsed.

More: What it may take to calm banking-sector jitters: time, and a Fed rate hike

Separately Sunday, Reuters reported the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is planning to relaunch a sale of Silicon Valley Bank, after no buyers emerged in previous sale attempts over the past week, under a plan that would also break up the bank. Bloomberg News also reported Sunday that the FDIC is eyeing a breakup of the bank as it tries to sell it in two parts.

Purchase bids for SVB’s private bank, which caters to high-net-worth individuals, would be due by Wednesday, according to Reuters and Bloomberg, while bids for the “bridge bank” set up by the FDIC are due Friday, Bloomberg reported.