Electronic Signature Legality for Banking in Australia: Simplify Document Signing with airSlate SignNow

How to eSign a document: electronic signature legality for Banking in Australia

hello and welcome back to our Channel in today's video we'll be discussing the recent seizure of Signature Bank by New York's Department of Financial Services ing to former Congressman Barney Frank who served on signatures board the bank was targeted as a message to other Banks not to do business with the crypto industry the evidence increasingly suggests that Mr Frank may be right Signature Bank did not invest in trade hold or make loans collateralized by digital s however it did Safeguard U.S dollar deposits of crypto companies and their customers crypto customers make up about 20 of signatures deposits which is more than at other Banks but less than at the failed silvergate Bank Regulators seized signature to send a message to get people away from crypto Mr Frank told Bloomberg Radio we were singled out to be the poster child for that message signature otherwise had a diverse deposit base that included many top New York law firms and real estate Developers until last week its greatest balance sheet risk appeared to be its heavy footprint in New York real estate like other Banks its assets also suffered from duration risk going to Rising interest rates which could cause losses if it had to liquidate Securities to redeem deposits as it did last week on Friday before its weekend closure signature lost 17.8 billion dollars in deposits but the bank had 4.54 billion dollars in cash and 26.4 billion dollars in marketable liquid securities it also reported 25.3 billion dollars in borrowing capacity Regulators haven't directly disputed that the bank could have survived the Run the State's Department of Financial Services said it took possession of the bank because it failed to provide reliable and consistent data creating a significant crisis of confidence in the bank's leadership and its ability to do business in a safe and sound manner on Monday does this mean Regulators can seize any Bank whose Executives it doesn't trust First Republic Banks problems appear larger than signatures yet Regulators orchestrated a 30 billion deposit injection from Big Banks to prevent its collapse perhaps as Mr Frank suggests Regulators may have taken down signature as part of their campaign to take down the crypto industry on January 3 the Federal Reserve Board of Governors Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation FDIC and the office of the Comptroller of the currency OCC issued a statement that they have significant safety and soundness concerns about Bank crypto exposure and would closely monitor crypto asset-related exposures a few weeks later the National Economic Council issued a policy statement discouraging Banks from transacting with crypto clients on February 23 the FED FDIC and OCC issued another statement warning Banks about potential liquidity risks from stable coins which are backed by hard currency reserves and are supposed to hold a fixed Peg to the U.S dollar signature held reserves backing stable coins Regulators are ostensibly concerned that crypto customers could rush to redeem stable coins all at once causing a drawdown of deposits that creates a liquidity squeeze this shouldn't be a problem for banks with diverse deposit bases and the risk of a deposit run isn't unique to crypto as we've seen this week Regulators ironically fueled the liquidity squeeze that they are ostensibly trying to prevent by spooking signature depositors about its crypto exposure by making crypto politically toxic they also concentrated crypto deposits at Banks like silvergate and signature following the government's signature seizure crypto companies say they are struggling to get other Banks to take their deposits while the FDIC is ostensibly trying to sell signature to another bank Reuters reports that two sources said any buyer must agree to give up all the crypto business at the bank the FDIC denies this the consequences of regulators actions are concerning not just for Signature Bank and its crypto customers but for the wider Financial system the government's intervention in the banking system raises questions about the role of regulators and the extent to which they should be allowed to intervene in the market in a free market Banks should be allowed to decide which customers they want to do business with based on their own risk assessments and business strategies the government's intervention sends a chilling message to banks that they cannot do business with certain industries or customers based on political or ideological considerations moreover the government's actions could have a chilling effect on innovation in the financial sector the crypto industry has been one of the most exciting areas of innovation in finance in recent years offering new ways to store value and transfer money by cracking down on banks that do business with the crypto industry the government risks stifling Innovation and driving it Underground in conclusion the seizure of Signature Bank raises important questions about the role of regulators in the banking system and the risks of government intervention in the market while there may be legitimate concerns about the risks associated with the crypto industry Regulators should not be allowed to use their powers to Target specific Industries or customers based on political or ideological considerations a free and open banking system is essential to a healthy Financial system and a thriving economy