HSBC’s SVB UK buyout: The codenames and secret talks which averted a banking disaster

Published

2 years ago

March 14, 2023

admin

The low point came on Sunday evening.

For two days and two nights the Bank of England had, alongside the Treasury and its fellow financial regulators, been locked in talks with a stream of potential buyers for the UK branch of Silicon Valley Bank.

With the clock ticking down to the opening of financial markets on Monday morning, things were suddenly looking bleak.

For a time on Sunday morning, it had looked as if a buyer could be found from one of the Gulf states. But those talks had foundered.

Officials had been calling round British banks but they were nervous about stepping in to buy SVB UK.

Would they be liable if anything emerged about the way the bank had done business in previous years? What about anti-money laundering rules – would they be liable there too?

As the questions hung in the air, the Bank began to map through a worst-case scenario.

Far from a normal bank

If it failed to find a buyer then it would have to announce that the bank was insolvent before markets opened on Monday.

Deposits up to £85,000 would be protected by Britain’s deposit insurance scheme, but while this would be sufficient for many “normal” customers in “normal” banks, Silicon Valley Bank was far from being a normal bank.

SVB, which as the name suggests began life on the west coast of the US, was a bank which catered not for regular individuals or for that matter regular businesses, but for the denizens of the tech sector.

Its American branch was the darling of Silicon Valley – the favourite place for its start-ups to bank.

Indeed, some venture capital firms insisted that the companies they were financing would put money there.

Something similar went for the UK arm, which was set up to provide financial services for Britain’s burgeoning tech scene.

Although it was considerably smaller than its American parent, SVB UK had built up accounts with more than 4,000 companies – including many prominent tech firms.

And since the UK’s tech sector is particularly focused on biotech and fintech (finance and medical technology firms respectively) that meant its customer base included some of the country’s most promising start-ups.

But in recent months, the US parent ran into trouble: the rise in global interest rates had caused a sharp fall in the value of bonds in SVB’s balance sheet.

As it sought to rebuild its financial position last week, it announced plans to raise more money from investors.

The panic spiral

The news triggered a panic about its survival.

Founders and executives began to pull money out of the US bank, and so began a bank run, with customers pulling their deposits out rapidly – both in America and, as news of the bank’s travails spread – in the UK too.

Bank runs are always fast, and SVB UK’s was no exception.

While the UK wing of SVB was far smaller than its American parent (which had $175bn as of December) the speed of its collapse was nonetheless breathtaking.

On Thursday afternoon SVB UK had around £11bn in customer deposits. By early afternoon on Friday customers had withdrawn more than £1bn, leaving just over £9bn.

As Friday afternoon wore on, the stream of withdrawals turned to a flood with a further £3bn being withdrawn by companies desperately worried about their funds.

That was when the Bank of England intervened and took control: with its deposit base having nearly halved in the space of just over 24 hours (to £6.7bn by close of play Friday), it was clear that SVB UK couldn’t survive on its own anymore.

By the time the Bank of England stepped in, executives at SVB UK seemed, as far as the regulators were concerned, to be relieved that they could at least stem the flow of deposits.

There was no question of getting an infusion of cash from the American parent bank (which had already effectively collapsed itself) so the only question was what kind of end SVB UK would face.

Could its demise be processed in an orderly manner or not?

The potential outcomes

There were, broadly speaking, three potential outcomes.

The first (and by far the most preferable) was to sell SVB UK in its entirety to another bank – ideally a British one, regulated in London.

The second was for a “bridge bank”: the government would take possession of SVB UK and find a way either of running it down over time or running it until it could be sold off.

The third was formal insolvency. The bank would be wound down. Depositors would have the first £85,000 of their deposits insured but anything above that would depend on how much money could be recouped from the insolvency process.

The problem with the latter two options was that both would involve the deployment of public money.

But that Friday evening, with no potential buyers having surfaced, the assumption at the Bank of England was that SVB UK would face insolvency.

Officials made a terse public announcement along those lines, and then they got to work trying to find a buyer.

Hundreds worked through the night

So began a long weekend at the Bank, and the biggest test yet of the “resolution” system put into place following the 2008 crisis, which promised to find a way to neatly wind up (or sell on) a bank in the event of collapse.

Hundreds of officials were drafted in – some in the Bank itself, some working from home, some from the other parts of Britain’s financial regulatory system and some from the Treasury – to find a solution.

Governor Andrew Bailey – who was in Basel, Switzerland, for a regular central banker summit – was involved in all the calls.

Officials worked through the night, catching a couple of hours’ sleep when they could.

The effort was given various codenames: at Threadneedle Street they called it “Operation Cork”, in the Treasury it was “Operation Yeti” and the various potential suitors to SVB UK were also given their own codenames to prevent news of them leaking.

The talks progressed, day and night, from Friday through to Sunday.

While on Friday night insolvency looked like the most likely outcome, as Saturday progressed a few suitors emerged.

For a period it looked as if a buyer would be found in the United Arab Emirates. Then those talks unravelled.

And by Sunday night, the low point, insolvency once again looked like the most likely endgame.

A collapse that threatened to be especially messy

No bank collapse is pretty, but SVB UK’s threatened to be especially messy.

On the one hand, it didn’t have individual customers – so there was no risk of hard-pressed households losing their savings.

This was a business bank, so the main victims would be companies. However, many of those companies had significant deposits at SVB UK.

By the close of play on Friday there were just over 4,000 customers of SVB UK.

Of these businesses, around half had less than £85,000 in their accounts, so would be fully protected by Britain’s deposit insurance scheme, a post-crisis innovation which protects bank customers up to a certain amount.

However, that left just under two thousand businesses with large amounts of money in their accounts – the average deposit of these customers was £3.5m.

Some had far greater amounts, with certain companies having hundreds of millions of pounds.

These companies faced an existential threat if SVB UK had collapsed without a buyer.

While in such insolvencies much of the lost deposits are eventually recouped, it is a slow drawn-out process which invariably causes deep uncertainty and leaves scars among those depositors.

Of even greater worry inside the bank were a set of “fintech” companies which acted as “deposit aggregators”, taking money from customers and then leaving some of that cash in a variety of other bank accounts.

Sky News understands that a number of these companies had significant amounts of customer money at SVB UK.

While those customer deposits would have been protected by deposit insurance in the event of a collapse, it would nonetheless have caused ripples of concern in the financial world.

As the officials worked through the night to find a buyer, they made plans for SVB UK’s formal insolvency. They tried to work out whether they could farm out some of its accounts to other banks, but the talks were difficult.

Then, in the early hours of Monday morning, things started to change.

HSBC’s bid came so late it didn’t get a codename

HSBC, which had surfaced in the negotiations so late that it hadn’t even been given a codename, emerged as a serious buyer.

It wanted certain assurances – that it wouldn’t face onerous anti-money laundering checks for its new customers and that it wouldn’t have to take responsibility for any previous misconduct at SVB UK – but it was willing to buy SVB UK for £1.

By about 1am on Monday, the Bank’s staff, bleary-eyed after a marathon weekend, realised that the worst seemed to have been averted.

HSBC was serious. The lawyers set to work on the contracts.

SVB UK would carry on operating, under the ownership of HSBC, who would gradually incorporate it into their business.

The thousands of customers – tech founders who had been facing potentially catastrophic consequences – would have all their deposits protected.

No public money would be deployed. It was, in the circumstances, about the best possible outcome.

A UK response that looks, comparatively, like a triumph

On the one hand, said some of those involved, the episode illustrated the strength of Britain’s bank resolution system.

A disaster was averted. No public money was deployed.

In the US, the Federal Reserve was forced to intervene and signal that it was standing behind customer deposits. The American parent faced insolvency; no buyer was found. By contrast, the UK’s response looked like a triumph.

However, the episode underlines a few things.

First, the financial system remains vulnerable to these unexpected shocks.

Second, there are question marks about why tech firms put quite so much money – way more than was insured by deposit protection – into a single bank, and especially about the fact that some were reportedly coerced to do by their financial backers.

Third, given this was yet another earthquake triggered in large part by rising interest rates (the first being Britain’s liability driven investment pensions crisis last autumn), what other bombs are buried in the system?

The final concern is that even as it helped confront this bank collapse, the Treasury is making plans to overhaul Britain’s financial regulation.

Its proposals will, say some economists, pare back some of the controls and rules imposed after the financial crisis.

Some wonder now whether this episode underlines why those controls matter so much.

Business

Plenty of concern about UK gilt yields and economic health but this isn’t a Liz Truss moment

Published

13 hours ago

January 8, 2025

admin

Plenty of concern about UK gilt yields and economic health but this isn't a Liz Truss moment

How worried should Rachel Reeves be about the fact that the interest rates on government bonds have leapt to the highest level in more than a quarter of a century?

More to the point, how worried should the rest of us be about it?

After all, the interest rate on 30-year government bonds (gilts, as they are known) hit 5.37% today—the highest level since 1998. The interest rate on the benchmark 10-year government bond is also up to the highest level since 2008.

Higher government borrowing rates mean, rather obviously, that the cost of all that investment Keir Starmer has promised in the coming years will go up. And since these rates reflect longer-term expectations for borrowing costs, in practice it means everything else in this economy will gradually get more expensive.

Money blog: Billionaire Premier League owner ‘thinking of leaving UK’ after budget

There are short-term and long-term consequences to all of this. In the short run, it means it will be harder for Ms Reeves to meet those fiscal rules she set herself. Back at the budget, she left herself a (in fiscal terms) paper-thin margin of £9.9bn not to overshoot on borrowing vs her new rules.

According to Capital Economics, based on recent market moves, that margin might now have been eroded down to around £1bn.

And, given that’s before the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has even decided on changes to its forecasts, it’s now touch and go as to whether Ms Reeves will meet her fiscal rules. As my colleague Sam Coates reported this week, the upshot is the Treasury is poised to pare back its spending plans in the coming years – a depressing prospect given the chancellor only just set them. But that won’t be clear until the OBR’s updated forecasts are published in March.

However, fiscal rules and political embarrassments are one thing – the bigger picture is another. And that bigger picture is that the UK is being charged higher interest rates by international investors to compensate them for their concerns about our economic future – about rising debt levels, about the threat of higher inflation and about fears of sub-par growth in the years to come.

How does this compare to the Liz Truss mini-budget?

But perhaps the biggest question of all is whether, what with long-term bond yields higher now (over 5.2%) than the highs they hit in October 2022, after the infamous mini-budget (4.8%), does that mean the economy is in even more of a crisis than it was under Liz Truss?

The short answer is no. This is nothing like the post mini-budget aftermath. Investors are concerned about UK debt levels – yes. They are repricing our debt accordingly. There was even a moment for a few days after the budget last autumn when the yields on UK bonds were behaving in an erratic, worrying way, rising more than most of our counterparts.

But – and this is the critical bit – we saw nothing like the levels of panic and concern in markets that we saw after the mini-budget. But don’t just take it from me. Consider two data-based metrics that are pretty useful in this case.

The first is to consider the fact that back in October 2022 it wasn’t just that the interest rates on government bonds were rising. It was that the pound was plummeting at the same time. That’s a toxic cocktail – a signal that investors are simply pulling their money out of the country. This time around, the pound is pretty steady, and is far stronger than it was in late 2022, when it hit the lowest level (against a basket of currencies) in modern history.

Is this just a UK problem?

The second test is to ask a question: is the UK an outlier? Are investors looking at this country and treating it differently to other countries?

And here, the answer is again somewhat reassuring for Ms Reeves. While it’s certainly true that UK government bond yields are up sharply in recent weeks, precisely the same thing is true of US government bond yields. Even German yields are up in recent weeks – albeit not as high as the US or UK.

In other words, the movements in bond yields don’t appear to be UK-specific. They’re part of a bigger movement across assets worldwide as investors face up to the new future – with governments (including the UK and the US under Donald Trump) willing to borrow more and spend more in the future. As I say, that’s somewhat reassuring for Ms Reeves, but I’m not sure it’s entirely reassuring for the rest of us.

One way of looking at this is by measuring how much the UK’s bond yields deviated from those American and German cousin rates in recent months. And while there was a point, a few days after Ms Reeves’ Halloween budget, when UK bond yields were more of an outlier than they historically have been after fiscal events, in the following weeks the UK stopped being much of an outlier. Yes, it was being charged more by investors, but then given the budget involved large spending and borrowing increases, that’s hardly surprising.

Now compare that with what happened after the mini-budget, when the UK’s bond yields deviated from their counterparts in the US and Germany more than after any other fiscal event in modern history – a terrifying rise which only ended after Kwasi Kwarteng stood down. Only when Ms Truss resigned were they back in what you might consider “normal” territory.

Now, it’s hard to compare different historical moments. The mini-budget was happening at a tense moment in financial markets, with the Bank of England poised to reverse its quantitative easing. Not all of the roller coaster can be attributed to Ms Truss. Even so, comparing that period to today is night and day.

Investors are not exactly delighted with the UK’s economic prospects right now. They’re letting this be known via financial markets. But they’re certainly not horrified in the way they were after the mini-budget of 2022.

Business

Power grid operator scrambles to avert blackout risk

Published

19 hours ago

January 8, 2025

admin

Power grid operator scrambles to avert blackout risk

The UK’s power grid operator has issued a call for electricity providers to bolster output this evening to avert the risk of blackouts.

The National Energy System Operator (NESO) issued an alert “to encourage market actions to increase system margins”.

It was the first such precautionary measure of the winter to date and issued at a time when much of the UK is shivering under sub-zero temperatures.

Money latest: The remortgage boom to hit households

The NESO is worried about a lack of spare capacity in the grid from 4pm until 7pm due to “system constraints”.

The body, which is in public control having been part of National Grid until last autumn, said in an update that it was seeking 1,200 megawatts (MW) of power as part of the so-called system margin notice.

Such notices are a call for a greater safety cushion between power demand and available supply.

The NESO was at pains to point out that it does not signal that blackouts are imminent or that there is not enough generation to meet current demand.

Read more: Why UK energy bills could rise

There is strain on the system due to a lack of wind and bitterly cold temperatures, which stoke stronger demand for electricity and gas.

Lows of minus 16C, the coldest of the winter so far, are forecast for parts of the UK on Thursday.

A yellow warning for snow and ice has been issued for northern Scotland and Northern Ireland from noon on Wednesday until midnight on Thursday.

Sub-zero temperatures are expected across the country for the foreseeable future.

It is the first winter the UK has seen in living memory without coal power forming part of the domestic electricity generation mix.

The number of such power stations held in reserve was gradually drawn down under efforts to reduce the country’s carbon footprint.

Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station shut down in September.

The UK has reciprocal arrangements with neighbouring countries to draw power via so-called interconnectors if and when required to help keep the lights on.

National Grid data showed that more than 50% of the UK’s power was being generated through natural gas.

Renewables accounted for just 16% while France and Norway were helping provide 10% of output, with nuclear and Biomass accounting for the bulk of the balance.

Business

Piers Morgan to leave Rupert Murdoch’s News UK in deal over YouTube venture

Published

22 hours ago

January 8, 2025

admin

Piers Morgan to leave Rupert Murdoch's News UK in deal over YouTube venture

Piers Morgan, the broadcaster and journalist, is leaving Rupert Murdoch’s British empire to focus on expanding his Uncensored YouTube channel in the US and other international markets, underlining prominent media figures’ accelerating shift away from traditional outlets.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that Mr Morgan and News UK – publisher of The Sun and The Times and owner of Times radio – have agreed a deal that will see him taking ownership of the Uncensored media brand and its existing 3.6 million-strong YouTube subscriber base through his production company, Wake Up Productions.

He is understood to have struck a four-year revenue-sharing deal with News UK that will see the Murdoch-owned company receiving a slice of the advertising revenue generated by Piers Morgan Uncensored until 2029.

Money latest: The remortgage boom to hit households

Mr Morgan returned to News UK in January 2022 with a three-year deal that included writing regular columns for The Sun and New York Post, as well as presenting shows on the company’s now-folded television channel, Talk TV.

People close to the situation said a book deal with the Murdoch-owned publisher Harper Collins would still go ahead, with Mr Morgan expected to complete that project later this year.

He will also continue to write occasionally for News Corporation’s newspapers, according to one insider.

Mr Morgan’s future had been the subject of growing speculation following the expiry of his three-year contract with News UK at the end of 2024.

As part of his new arrangements, Mr Morgan has also signed a deal with Red Seat Ventures, a US-based agency which partners with prominent media figures and influencers to help them exploit commercial opportunities through sponsorship and other revenue streams.

Among those Red Seat has worked with are Megyn Kelly, the American commentator, and Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News presenter.

Mr Morgan is also understood to have received expressions of interest in other commercial and broadcasting deals from American media groups, having been one of few Brits to present his own TV chatshow on a mainstream US network.

Fond of the phrase “One day you’re the cock of the walk, the next you’re the feather duster,” during various phases of his career, his latest deal reflects the shifting dynamics in media consumption.

Responding to an enquiry from Sky News on Wednesday morning, Mr Morgan said in a statement: “I have had a great time working back at News and am delighted that we will continue to be partners.

“Owning the brand allows my team and I the freedom to focus exclusively on building Uncensored into a standalone business, editorially and commercially, and in time, widening it from just me and my content.

“It’s clear from the recent US election that YouTube is an increasingly powerful and influential media platform, and Uncensored is one of the fastest-growing shows on it in the world.

“I’m very excited about the potential for Uncensored.”

Mr Morgan declined to comment on any other aspect of his new arrangement with News UK or his expansion plans ahead of an official announcement, which is understood to be scheduled for later on Wednesday.

His decision to strike out on his own – albeit with a continued relationship with News UK – is said to reflect his belief that broadcast audiences will increasingly shift away from mainstream channels to platforms such as YouTube.

“He thinks YouTube will be a dominant broadcasting platform in terms of audience share within a couple of years,” said one.

It was unclear what the precise revenue split would be between Wake Up Productions and News UK during their four-year partnership.

He is expected to focus his efforts to expand Uncensored on US audiences initially, with a wider international plan to follow that.

On Tuesday, Mr Morgan posted on X that he believed an interview with Elon Musk, the Tesla founder who has sparked a firestorm in British politics in recent weeks, was “getting closer”.

Among the other interviewees on his YouTube show have been Donald Trump during his first presidency, the Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelensky and Cristiano Ronaldo, the footballer.