Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Signature Bank


Signature Bank was a New York state-chartered commercial bank founded in 2001 and headquartered in New York City, focusing primarily on commercial real estate and commercial and industrial lending funded by customer deposits. With total assets of $110.36 billion as of December 31, 2022, it operated through private client offices serving business and personal banking needs. The bank experienced rapid growth but collapsed on March 12, 2023, when the New York State Department of Financial Services closed it amid a severe deposit run, appointing the FDIC as receiver in what became the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history. The bank's failure stemmed from poor management practices, including unrestrained expansion without adequate risk controls or buffers, exacerbated by contagion from the collapse. Signature Bank's heavy reliance on uninsured deposits—over 80% of its funding—left it vulnerable to sudden withdrawals, with $40 billion in deposits fleeing over two days despite efforts to shore up . Although it had expanded into servicing firms, representing a minority of deposits, regulators emphasized that the closure resulted from broader shortfalls rather than digital asset exposures alone. The FDIC estimated the resolution cost at $2.5 billion to the Deposit Insurance Fund, highlighting deficiencies in supervisory oversight amid staffing shortages.
Prior to its demise, Signature Bank had built a reputation for relationship-driven banking, growing from a startup lender to a mid-tier institution with a market capitalization peak during the low-interest-rate environment of the early 2020s. Its commercial real estate portfolio, concentrated in New York multifamily properties, drove profitability but amplified risks from interest rate shifts and economic pressures. The episode underscored vulnerabilities in regional banks pursuing high-growth strategies without commensurate contingency planning, prompting regulatory scrutiny on deposit concentration and unrealized losses in held-to-maturity securities.

Founding and Early Development

Establishment in 2001

Signature Bank was chartered as a New York state nonmember commercial bank on April 12, 2001, with its headquarters in New York City. The institution was founded by Joseph J. DePaolo, who became its president and chief executive officer, along with Scott A. Shay and John Tamberlane, all former executives at Republic National Bank of New York. These founders sought to create a full-service commercial bank emphasizing personalized relationship banking for privately owned businesses, their owners, and high-net-worth individuals, differentiating from larger institutions through direct access to senior management and customized services. The bank received approval from the New York State Banking Department on April 5, 2001, backed by an initial capitalization of $42.5 million primarily from Bank Hapoalim, an Israeli financial institution. Signature Bank opened for business on May 1, 2001, initially operating six branches concentrated in the New York metropolitan area to serve local commercial clients. From inception, the focus was on organic growth through targeted client acquisition in sectors like real estate, professional services, and not-for-profit organizations, avoiding reliance on broad retail deposit gathering. In its first year, Signature Bank prioritized building a deposit base from business relationships rather than aggressive lending expansion, achieving approximately $3.4 billion in assets by the end of as an indicator of early operational scaling from the 2001 foundation. The bank's structure allowed for tailored governance, with DePaolo's leadership emphasizing efficiency and client-centric controls from the outset.

Initial Growth Strategies (2001-2010)

Signature Bank commenced operations on May 1, 2001, as a full-service headquartered in , founded by Joseph J. DePaolo, Scott A. Shay, and John Tamberlane, who were former executives at Republic National Bank of New York. The bank's initial strategy emphasized relationship-based private client banking, targeting privately owned businesses, their owners, and senior executives in the , with a focus on personalized service, local decision-making, and competitive deposit products such as free checking accounts and high-yield options to attract high-net-worth individuals and small-to-medium enterprises. This approach differentiated Signature from larger institutions by prioritizing direct banker-client interactions over transactional banking, enabling rapid client acquisition through recruited teams of experienced relationship managers. Organic expansion formed the core of growth efforts, with the bank opening private client offices in high-density business districts across the metro region to enhance accessibility and proximity to target clients. By the end of , Signature operated 12 such offices, supporting steady increases in deposits and assets since inception. The bank completed its in , providing capital to fuel further branch development and lending capacity without relying on acquisitions. Lending focused on commercial real estate, firms, and not-for-profit organizations, aligning with the region's economic composition and yielding milestones in alongside asset accumulation. By 2010, these strategies had propelled Signature to nearly $12 billion in assets, achieved through consistent organic expansion over less than a decade. Loan growth reached 20 percent that year, earning the bank a ranking of 10th among public banks for loan expansion, driven primarily by commercial portfolios rather than consumer or residential segments. This period solidified Signature's niche in serving underserved segments of the commercial banking market, with deposit growth funding asset expansion while maintaining a conservative funding mix centered on core client relationships.

Business Model and Operations

Core Commercial Banking Services

Signature Bank's core commercial banking services were delivered through a relationship-based model emphasizing personalized, high-touch interactions via its network of 40 private client offices primarily in the New York metropolitan area. This approach assigned a single dedicated banker to each client—typically small- to medium-sized businesses and high-net-worth individuals—for handling all deposit, lending, and cash management needs, contrasting with transactional models at larger banks. The bank avoided widespread retail branches, focusing instead on these offices to foster long-term relationships that drove deposit growth, with no-fee structures like unlimited free domestic wire transfers attracting affluent commercial clients. Lending formed the cornerstone of these services, with commercial real estate (CRE) loans comprising a dominant share of the portfolio, totaling about $33 billion as of early 2023. These included , , and property financing targeted at developers and investors in the Northeast U.S., often structured with short-term maturities and interest-only payments to support cycles. Commercial and industrial (C&I) loans supplemented this, funding and equipment for firms, -related businesses, and other sectors, though CRE exposure reached over 50% of total loans by 2022. Deposit and treasury services rounded out the offerings, featuring customizable business checking and savings accounts, sweep programs for liquidity management, and advanced cash management tools like ACH processing and positive pay fraud prevention. Escrow and custody services supported transactions, while the model's emphasis on sticky, uninsured deposits—averaging over $10 million per relationship—enabled efficient funding of lending activities without heavy reliance on . This integrated service suite prioritized client retention and , contributing to consistent double-digit annual growth in core deposits and loans from 2010 through 2021.

Expansion into Niche Markets (2010s)

During the 2010s, Signature Bank deepened its penetration into niche commercial lending segments, primarily targeting privately held businesses in the through specialized commercial real estate (CRE) and commercial and industrial (C&I) loans. These sectors leveraged the bank's relationship-driven model, which prioritized high-touch service for mid-sized firms underserved by larger institutions, fostering via client referrals without reliance on or expenditures. By mid-decade, this strategy yielded consistent double-digit annual growth in loans and deposits, positioning the bank as a leading mid-sized commercial lender in the region. CRE lending, in particular, became a of expansion, with the bank financing developers and property owners amid recovering post-2008 market conditions. Loans in this category grew substantially, supported by the bank's expertise in navigating local regulatory and transactional complexities, while C&I facilities catered to industries such as and for needs. This focus on concentrated, high-value relationships—often with business owners and executives—differentiated from broader retail banks, enabling it to amass uninsured deposits and reciprocal business arrangements that amplified lending capacity. By the end of the decade, these niche efforts propelled total assets beyond $50 billion as of , 2019, reflecting compounded yearly increases in targeted portfolios despite broader economic . The bank's avoidance of commoditized consumer banking allowed for higher-margin operations, though it also heightened exposure to cyclical sectors like , a dynamic later scrutinized in regulatory reviews. This era solidified Signature's reputation for tailored financing in underserved commercial niches, setting the stage for further diversification in subsequent years.

Innovations in Digital and Crypto Services

Development of Signet Platform

Signature Bank developed the platform in 2018 through a partnership with blockchain developer Tassat Group, creating a proprietary, blockchain-based system for real-time digital payments. The platform utilized a permissioned blockchain to enable institutional-grade transactions, initially focused on providing 24/7/365 settlement capabilities for U.S. dollar payments among approved counterparties. This development addressed limitations in traditional banking systems, such as and limited operating hours, by leveraging technology for instantaneous verification and transfer without intermediaries. The platform received approval from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) in late 2018, marking it as the first such solution authorized for use by a regulated financial institution in the state, particularly for handling payments involving digital assets. Signature Bank unveiled Signet publicly on December 4, 2018, emphasizing its role in facilitating secure, real-time transfers for commercial clients while maintaining compliance with regulatory standards. Development incorporated features like end-to-end encryption, multi-signature approvals, and integration with existing banking rails, positioning Signet as a white-label adaptation of Tassat's broader payment technology. Signet officially launched on January 1, 2019, at 12:01 a.m. , initially available to select commercial clients before expanding access. Early adoption targeted high-volume sectors like payroll processing and firms, with the platform processing payments in to reduce settlement risks and operational costs. By mid-2020, Signature integrated with the Fireblocks Network to enhance custody and transfers, enabling seamless connectivity for crypto-related transactions while broadening its utility beyond blockchain-native users. Further enhancements continued into 2022, including the addition of compatibility on April 12, 2022, which allowed users to interface with the Federal Reserve's traditional wire system for hybrid payment flows, thereby increasing interoperability without compromising real-time features. This iterative development reflected Signature Bank's strategy to innovate within regulatory bounds, prioritizing scalability and security for institutional clients amid growing demand for efficient payment solutions.

Servicing Cryptocurrency Clients

Signature Bank positioned itself as one of the few traditional U.S. banks willing to provide banking services to firms, including deposit holding and payment processing tailored to the sector's need for constant . These services were critical for exchanges and issuers, which required rapid conversion between digital assets and U.S. dollars outside standard banking hours. By offering accounts backed by USD reserves and real-time settlement capabilities, Signature enabled clients to manage on-ramps and off-ramps efficiently, reducing risks in high-volume trading environments. The bank's platform, integrated with architecture, represented a key innovation in this servicing, allowing institutional clients to execute unlimited, fee-free transfers representing escrowed dollars /7. This functionality addressed a core pain point for the , where traditional wire systems were batch-processed and unavailable overnight or on weekends. Signature's with crypto custody providers like Fireblocks further streamlined access, permitting secure, automated payments directly from wallets to bank-held fiat. By late 2021, such services had attracted deposits from cryptocurrency businesses amounting to around 30 percent of the bank's total, though this exposure later prompted risk mitigation efforts. Notable clients included stablecoin issuer and various exchanges seeking alternatives after issues at specialized crypto banks like Silvergate. In early 2023, amid Silvergate's distress and the collapse, Signature absorbed additional crypto deposits as a temporary haven, with these clients comprising up to 25 percent of its funding base at points. However, the bank's executives actively courted this sector despite its volatility, viewing it as a growth opportunity in niche commercial banking, though this reliance amplified sensitivity to market downturns. Regulatory scrutiny over potential anti-money laundering gaps in these relationships was ongoing, with the FDIC preparing orders for apparent violations tied to crypto activities prior to the 2023 failure.

Governance, Risk Management, and Regulatory Oversight

Management Practices and Internal Controls

Signature Bank's management emphasized aggressive expansion, with assets growing from approximately $30 billion in 2017 to over $110 billion by early , but prioritized short-term profitability over robust frameworks, leading to inadequate adaptation to the bank's increasing complexity. FDIC examiners characterized management as reactive rather than proactive, often dismissing or minimally addressing supervisory findings on risks such as and deposit concentration. This approach contributed to persistent unremediated issues, including 3 open Matters Requiring Board Attention (MRBAs) and 49 Supervisory Recommendations (SRs) as of March . Internal controls exhibited significant weaknesses, particularly in issue tracking and remediation processes, which delayed corrective actions and allowed risks to accumulate. A 2022 targeted review, conducted from March to May and resulting in a Supervisory Letter issued January 23, 2023, highlighted deficiencies in , decision-making authority, and product risk monitoring, issuing 2 MRBAs and 4 SRs that remained unaddressed at failure. Management's responses to these concerns were often superficial, described as "check-the-box" efforts, with slow progress on commitments like improvements promised by June 2021. Liquidity internal controls were notably deficient, with the bank's CAMELS liquidity rating downgraded from 2 to 3 in 2019 due to inadequate contingency funding plans and stress testing that failed to account for deposit volatility. Despite adopting third-party models, progress remained insufficient, as evidenced by recurring MRBAs on liquidity risk management outstanding since 2019 and poor handling of a $17.6 billion deposit outflow in 2022. By December 2021, uninsured deposits comprised 92% of total deposits and 82% of assets, yet stress tests lacked realistic assumptions for such concentrations, particularly from digital asset clients. On March 10, 2023, amid a $18.6 billion run, management rejected examiner warnings about uninsured deposit instability as late as noon EST. Governance practices reflected concentrated authority and weak board oversight, with the board approving relaxations of internal risk limits—such as raising the digital asset deposit cap from 10% to 35% in —without commensurate control enhancements. The Report of Examination, issued December 13, 2022, rated overall as satisfactory but flagged needs for stronger liquidity amid rapid . These lapses culminated in a CAMELS downgrade to 5 on March 11, 2023, just before .

Interactions with Regulators Pre-2023

Signature Bank, as a New York state-chartered institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), underwent regular examinations by the FDIC as its primary federal regulator and the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) as its chartering authority. From 2017 through 2022, the FDIC consistently assigned the bank a composite CAMELS rating of 2, denoting satisfactory overall condition, though individual components such as liquidity were downgraded to 3 (needs improvement) starting in 2019 due to inadequate funds management practices and high reliance on uninsured deposits, which reached 92 percent of total deposits by late 2021. NYDFS examinations paralleled these findings, issuing supervisory letters in 2020 and 2021 highlighting persistent liquidity deficiencies. Liquidity risk management emerged as a recurrent supervisory concern across multiple examination cycles. In the 2018 FDIC examination, regulators noted breaches of board-approved liquidity risk metrics and issued an MRBA (Matter Requiring Board Attention) for inadequate contingency planning, alongside numerous supervisory recommendations (SRs) on stress testing and controls. The 2019 cycle resulted in seven MRBAs and 88 SRs, with emphasis on escalating uninsured deposit concentrations—rising from 82 percent of total deposits—and weak oversight of rapid growth in commercial real estate lending. By the 2021 cycle, 18 SRs and two MRBAs from prior liquidity reviews remained open, including failures to fully implement contingency funding plans amid crypto-related deposit surges totaling $28.7 billion. NYDFS echoed these issues, closing an initial 2018 MRBA on metric breaches by 2020 but issuing new ones in 2019 for board risk appetite limits and planning gaps, with the bank pledging remediation via third-party hires by mid-2021, though progress lagged. Management responses were characterized as reactive and incomplete, often requesting extensions without substantive resolution. Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance represented another area of ongoing scrutiny, with FDIC examiners identifying repeat deficiencies since at least 2016. An informal action for BSA/AML weaknesses was resolved by June 2018, but by 2022, 13 SRs and eight MRBAs remained unresolved, including inadequate customer and suspicious activity monitoring, exacerbated by the bank's servicing of firms. In 2022, the FDIC coordinated with NYDFS to consider formal , including a potential consent order for apparent violations of AML/countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) requirements and (OFAC) sanctions programs, though no such order was issued prior to 2023. Additional concerns encompassed model (12 open SRs by 2021) and , with a 2022 FDIC targeted review uncovering board oversight lapses tied to aggressive expansion into clients. Despite these findings, regulators refrained from formal actions, relying on supervisory letters and MRAs, while maintaining the bank's overall satisfactory rating.

Pre-Collapse Controversies and Criticisms

Allegations of Risk Concentration

Signature Bank's deposit portfolio exhibited significant concentration in the sector, with digital asset-related clients accounting for approximately 23.5 percent of total deposits as of September 30, 2022. This exposure drew scrutiny from financial analysts and market observers amid the 2022 market downturn, characterized by sharp asset price declines and high-profile exchange failures such as , which amplified concerns over the and interconnected risks tied to these clients. The bank's strategy of attracting large uninsured deposits—comprising nearly 90 percent of its total deposit base—from crypto firms and related entities was viewed as heightening vulnerabilities, given the sector's sensitivity to market shocks and potential for rapid withdrawals. Regulatory examiners had flagged deficiencies in the bank's liquidity risk management practices in examinations conducted years prior to 2023, urging improvements to address concentrations in volatile commercial deposits. The New York State Department of Financial Services later assessed that Signature's overall risk management framework failed to adequately scale with the complexity and elevated profile of its client base, including crypto concentrations, despite repeated supervisory feedback. In acknowledgment of these pressures, Signature implemented deposit caps on December 7, 2022, restricting any single client to no more than 2 percent of total deposits to diversify its funding sources and curb over-reliance on high-risk segments. Critics, including short-sellers and industry reports, highlighted the bank's tilt as a reputational and operational hazard, evidenced by stock volatility correlating with market swings in 2022, which underscored the perils of sector-specific dependency without robust hedging or diversification. These pre-collapse allegations centered on the causal link between unchecked concentration and amplified systemic fragility, particularly as uninsured deposits from entities—estimated at around 20 percent of the $88.6 billion total—proved prone to flight during periods of asset .

AML and Compliance Challenges

Signature Bank faced persistent deficiencies in its (BSA)/anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program, as identified in FDIC examinations from 2017 through 2022. These issues included weaknesses in suspicious activity monitoring, high-risk customer account reviews, customer , and alert clearing processes, with open Supervisory Recommendations (SRs) rising from five in 2017 to 13 in 2022, and Matters Requiring Board Attention (MRBAs) increasing from one to eight over the same period. In 2016, the FDIC had initiated an informal enforcement action addressing weaknesses in the BSA/AML program, which was terminated in June 2018 following management's remediation efforts. Examination cycles revealed recurring violations and shortcomings. The 2017 review cited weaknesses in suspicious activity monitoring, resulting in an MRBA and two apparent violations for failing to file suspicious activity reports, as detailed in the Report of Examination () issued on July 31, 2018. By 2018, examiners noted deficiencies in higher-risk customer review processes and openings, prompting an MRBA in the July 31, 2019 . The 2019 cycle highlighted ongoing concerns with the quantity and quality of high-risk account reviews, leading to MRBAs for board oversight, development, and review processes in the October 2, 2020 . Similar patterns continued in 2020 and 2021, with unresolved issues in high-risk reviews and , culminating in and an AML targeted review launched on July 19, 2021. These compliance lapses were exacerbated by the bank's expansion into high-risk sectors, including clients, which amplified scrutiny under BSA/AML and (OFAC) sanctions requirements. A 2022 BSA targeted review identified eight MRBAs and 12 SRs, citing a high-risk profile due to inadequate board and oversight, repeat findings, and apparent violations of FDIC regulations. The FDIC considered a formal consent order in 2022 for AML/countering the financing of (CFT) and OFAC violations, alongside planned actions for broader funds management deficiencies, though these were not issued prior to the bank's closure. Federal prosecutors also investigated the bank's controls, particularly regarding cryptocurrency dealings, in the months leading up to March 2023. Despite management's responses, such as enhancing programs post-2017 findings, the FDIC characterized these AML deficiencies as chronic, contributing to elevated operational risks.

The 2023 Collapse

Timeline of Events and Deposit Runs

On March 8, 2023, Silvergate Bank's announcement of self-liquidation heightened concerns in the banking sector, particularly for institutions with exposures like Signature Bank. This set the stage for effects amid broader market unease. The immediate trigger for Signature Bank's deposit run occurred on March 10, 2023, coinciding with the of earlier that day. Deposit withdrawals at Signature began modestly at approximately $2.5 billion, which the bank initially covered using available . However, outflows accelerated dramatically after Bank's failure became public, with $18.6 billion in deposits withdrawn by 6:00 p.m. EST—primarily in the final two hours—representing about 20 percent of Signature's total deposits of roughly $88.6 billion. These withdrawals strained the bank's position, prompting the FDIC to initiate interim downgrades in supervisory ratings for (from 3 to 4) and management (from 2 to 3). Signature's leadership dismissed examiner warnings about the instability of its largely uninsured deposits as late as noon EST that day. On March 11, 2023, regulators including the FDIC, New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS), and Federal Reserve Bank of New York held ongoing discussions with Signature to evaluate its deteriorating . Supervisory ratings were further downgraded to critical levels: to 5, management to 5, and overall composite to 5, reflecting failures in management. By March 12, 2023, withdrawal requests had escalated to $7.9 billion, leaving Signature with only about $3 billion in —equivalent to 4 percent of total deposits. At 5:30 p.m. EST, the NYSDFS closed the bank due to the unsustainable run, appointing the FDIC as receiver just 53 hours after Bank's failure. The rapid sequence of events underscored vulnerabilities from Signature's high proportion of uninsured deposits (over 90 percent) and its servicing of clients, which amplified withdrawal pressures amid sector-wide panic.

FDIC Assessment of Primary Causes

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) identified poor management as the root cause of Signature Bank's failure on March 12, 2023, attributing it to the board of directors and senior management's pursuit of rapid, unrestrained growth without implementing commensurate risk management practices and internal controls suitable for the institution's evolving size, complexity, and risk profile. This mismanagement manifested in inadequate oversight of liquidity, funding, and concentration risks, despite repeated supervisory feedback from the FDIC and the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS). The FDIC's internal review emphasized that Signature's leadership prioritized expansion—evidenced by total assets growing 175% from $43.1 billion in 2017 to $118.4 billion in 2021—over robust governance, resulting in weak corporate controls and a reactive approach to identified deficiencies. Signature Bank's funding model exacerbated these vulnerabilities through heavy reliance on uninsured deposits, which comprised 92% of total deposits (and 82% of total assets) by the end of 2021, with significant concentration in volatile sectors such as digital assets and commercial real estate. Digital asset-related deposits alone surged 219% to $28.7 billion in 2021, representing 27% of total deposits, while 60 large clients each holding over $250 million accounted for approximately 40% of deposits; this structure lacked diversification and contingency planning, including deficient liquidity stress testing and unvalidated models. Management's failure to address recurring FDIC findings—such as liquidity risk management weaknesses noted as early as 2019, when the component rating was downgraded to "3"—contributed to insufficient buffers against outflows, with no effective strategies for deposit retention or alternative funding sources. The immediate trigger for collapse was a liquidity crisis precipitated by contagion from Silicon Valley Bank's failure on March 10, , leading to $18.6 billion in deposit withdrawals within one day and $7.9 billion in additional requests by March 12, overwhelming Signature's holdings of low-yield, illiquid securities and limited access to facilities. While the FDIC acknowledged its own supervisory shortcomings—such as delayed enforcement actions and communication lags due to staffing constraints, which prevented a timely downgrade of the management component rating to "3" by mid-2021—these were deemed contributing rather than primary factors, with the institution's inherent weaknesses amplifying the run's impact. The FDIC report underscored that effective risk controls could have mitigated the contagion effects, highlighting management's dismissal of prior warnings, including a January supervisory letter critiquing governance over expansion.

Resolution and Immediate Aftermath

Seizure by Regulators

On March 12, 2023, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS) took possession of Signature Bank, New York, New York, determining that the institution was no longer in a safe and sound condition to transact business. The action was authorized under Section 606 of the New York Banking Law, which empowers the superintendent to seize control of distressed banks to safeguard depositors and maintain financial stability. NYSDFS Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris announced the closure, stating it was necessary to protect customers amid the bank's deteriorating position. In conjunction with the state regulator's move, the (FDIC) was appointed as receiver for Signature Bank, enabling the federal agency to oversee the resolution process. The seizure occurred two days after the and followed intense deposit outflows at Signature, which had strained its funding sources despite emergency borrowing from the 's . Concurrently, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, , and FDIC invoked the exception under the , committing to protect all depositors, including those exceeding the $250,000 limit, to mitigate broader risks in the banking system. This coordinated regulatory intervention marked Signature Bank as the second major U.S. bank failure in the 2023 banking crisis.

Disposition of Assets and Deposits

Flagstar Bank, N.A., a subsidiary of New York Community Bancorp, Inc., acquired substantially all deposits and certain assets from Signature Bridge Bank, N.A., the bridge bank established by the FDIC following Signature Bank's closure on March 12, 2023. The transaction, approved by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on March 20, 2023, involved the assumption of $36.2 billion in deposits, excluding approximately $4.0 billion tied to Signature Bank's digital asset banking operations, which were not transferred due to perceived risks. Flagstar also purchased $38.4 billion in assets, including a $12.9 billion loan portfolio, under a purchase and assumption agreement that preserved access for depositors. The deal included the transfer of Signature Bank's 40 branches, which reopened as Flagstar branches starting March 20, , ensuring continuity for commercial and retail customers outside the excluded segment. Remaining assets, primarily around $60 billion in loans, stayed in FDIC for orderly or future disposition to minimize losses to the Fund. As of the resolution, the FDIC estimated the failure's cost to the fund at $2.5 billion, later adjusted to $2.4 billion upon final accounting. This disposition prioritized rapid stabilization of insured deposits—totaling about $88.6 billion at year-end —while isolating higher-risk exposures, such as those from cryptocurrency-linked clients, which had contributed to the bank's vulnerability. The FDIC's approach avoided a broader systemic payout by leveraging assumption, though it highlighted challenges in valuing and offloading concentrated and tech-related loans retained in .

Long-Term Implications and Legacy

Impact on the Cryptocurrency Sector

Signature Bank's failure on March 12, 2023, disrupted operations for firms that relied on it as a primary banking partner, particularly through its platform, which facilitated real-time payments and was used by institutional clients for efficient . The platform, built on , had become integral for handling high-volume, low-cost transfers among entities, but the seizure prompted clients to rapidly seek alternatives amid fears of prolonged . Approximately $4 billion in -related deposits were initially retained by the FDIC in , excluding them from the bridge bank's asset sale to , which further complicated liquidity access for affected firms. The FDIC directed Signature's clients to close their accounts by April 5, 2023, accelerating a scramble for new banking relationships and exposing vulnerabilities in the sector's dependence on a limited number of crypto-friendly institutions, following similar issues with Silvergate Capital and . This mandate stemmed from heightened regulatory scrutiny of exposures, as evidenced by deposit runs triggered partly by the collapse in November 2022, which eroded confidence and led to $18.6 billion in withdrawals on March 10, 2023, including from customers. While Signature had reduced its holdings by offloading $8 billion in related assets in December 2022 to mitigate risks amid market turmoil, the bank's perceived ties to the industry amplified contagion effects, contributing to depegging risks and broader liquidity strains in markets. In the aftermath, the crypto sector faced technical and operational hurdles, such as integrating with new payment systems, but demonstrated adaptability as firms migrated to surviving banks or offshore options, underscoring the fragility of on-ramps between traditional finance and digital assets. New York Superintendent of Financial Services Adrienne Harris noted that Signature's collapse was not inherently tied to activities, attributing primary causes to uninsured deposit runs rather than sector-specific defaults, though the association intensified regulatory caution toward crypto banking partnerships. Long-term, the event heightened barriers to banking services for crypto entities, prompting calls for diversified to reduce reliance on vulnerable intermediaries.

Lessons for Banking Risk and Innovation

The failure of Signature Bank highlighted the perils of unchecked concentration risks in banking portfolios, particularly when tied to volatile or niche sectors such as cryptocurrency-related clients, which accounted for approximately 20% of its deposits by late 2022. Regulators identified poor management practices as the root cause, including inadequate oversight of and reputational risks stemming from heavy reliance on uninsured deposits—over 90% of which were uninsured at the time of collapse—making the bank vulnerable to sudden outflows triggered by market contagion from the failure on March 10, 2023. This underscores a key lesson: banks must prioritize diversified funding bases and rigorous for sector-specific shocks, rather than pursuing rapid growth through concentrated client exposures that amplify systemic vulnerabilities. Liquidity management deficiencies further exemplified how innovation in client servicing can inadvertently heighten run risks if not paired with conservative practices. Signature's deposits surged from $50 billion in 2019 to over $110 billion by December 2022, driven by firms seeking banking partnerships amid limited traditional options, yet the bank maintained insufficient liquid assets to cover potential withdrawals exceeding 10% of deposits in a single day, as evidenced by the $40 billion outflow on March 11-12, . A critical takeaway is the need for dynamic contingency funding plans, including diversified collateral pools for access, to mitigate the "digital run" dynamics observed in modern banking, where and sector interlinkages accelerate deposit flight. In terms of innovation, Signature's pioneering of real-time payment platforms like —launched in 2012 to enable instant transfers for business clients, including entities—demonstrated potential for efficiency gains but also exposed flaws in risk-adjusted innovation strategies. The bank's aggressive embrace of -adjacent services, without fully accounting for the sector's regulatory scrutiny and volatility, contributed to reputational contagion, as firms withdrew funds en masse amid broader industry fears post-FTX collapse in November 2022. This illustrates that while innovations can drive deposit growth and competitive edges, they demand integrated risk frameworks, such as enhanced scenario modeling for client-sector dependencies and proactive diversification away from correlated assets like commercial loans, which comprised 15% of Signature's portfolio and faced parallel pressures. Banks innovating in emerging fields must embed causal risk assessments from inception, avoiding the over-optimism that treats high-growth niches as low-risk opportunities without empirical validation of downside scenarios.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] Signature Bank - Annual Reports
    Dec 31, 2004 · The Bank is a New York State chartered bank and received its charter from the New York State Banking Department on April 5, 2001. The Bank ...<|separator|>
  2. [2]
    [PDF] FDIC'S SUPERVISION OF SIGNATURE BANK
    Apr 28, 2023 · As of March 19, 2023, the FDIC estimated the cost of SBNY's failure to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) to be approximately $2.5 billion. The ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] SIGNATURE BANK - FDIC
    Jan 17, 2023 · Total assets were $110.36 billion at. December 31, 2022, decreasing $8.08 billion, or 6.8 percent, from $118.45 billion at December 31, 2021.
  4. [4]
    Failed Bank Information for Signature Bank, New York, NY - FDIC
    Under federal law, failure to file a claim on or before the Claims Bar Date will result in disallowance of the claim by the Receiver. The disallowance will be ...Missing: causes | Show results with:causes
  5. [5]
    Signature Bank: Third-biggest bank failure in U.S. history - CNBC
    Mar 13, 2023 · That run on deposits quickly led to the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history. Regulators announced late Sunday that Signature was being ...Missing: reports | Show results with:reports<|separator|>
  6. [6]
    Signature Bank failure due to 'poor management,' US FDIC report says
    Apr 28, 2023 · Last month's failure of New York-based Signature Bank was caused by "poor management" and a pursuit of "rapid, unrestrained growth" with little regard for risk ...Missing: founding | Show results with:founding
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Material Loss Review of Signature Bank of New York
    Oct 23, 2023 · SBNY's failure was caused by insufficient liquidity and contingency funding mechanisms, which impeded the bank's ability to withstand a run on ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] NYSDFS Internal Review of the Supervision and Closure of ...
    Apr 28, 2023 · While the role of digital assets in Signature's failure has been the subject of speculation, the percentage of digital asset customer ...
  9. [9]
    Signature Bank's closure had 'nothing to do with crypto' - Reuters
    Mar 14, 2023 · New York's financial regulator said its decision to close Signature Bank had “nothing to do with crypto,” citing what it called “a ...
  10. [10]
    Signature Bank Releases 2022 Form 10-K - Business Wire
    Mar 2, 2023 · Since commencing operations in May 2001, Signature Bank reported $110.36 billion in assets and $88.59 billion in deposits as of December 31, ...
  11. [11]
    Signature Bank - BankFind Suite: Institution Details - FDIC
    Institution Details ; FDIC Cert #. 57053 ; Established. 04/12/2001 ; Bank Charter Class. State Chartered Banks, not member of the Federal Reserve System (FRS).Missing: key | Show results with:key<|control11|><|separator|>
  12. [12]
    Signature Bank - Companies History
    Mar 14, 2024 · Signature Bank was founded in 2001 by Joseph J. DePaolo, Scott A. Shay and John Tamberlane. In 2004, the bank completed its Initial Public ...
  13. [13]
    Signature Bank | TrendSpider Learning Center
    Signature Bank, a New York-based financial institution, was founded on May 1, 2001, by Joseph J. DePaolo, Scott A. Shay, and John Tamberlane.Missing: charter | Show results with:charter
  14. [14]
    https://dcfmodeling.com/blogs/history/sbny-history-mission-ownership
  15. [15]
    [PDF] a decade of growth and achievement - AnnualReports.com
    ask us to divulge how Signature Bank grew organically from nothing to a nearly $12 billion institution in less than 10 years. Our growth story is nothing short ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Signature Bank - Leasing News
    Journal ranked Signature number 10 among public banks for loan growth in 2010. The journal noted that the bank's 20 percent loan growth that year was largely.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  17. [17]
    Oversight of Prudential Regulators | FDIC.gov
    May 16, 2023 · The bank focused on offering banking services to high-net-worth individuals, including residential real estate lending, private banking, ...
  18. [18]
    FDIC Announces Start of Marketing Process for $33 Billion ...
    Sep 5, 2023 · FDIC Announces Start of Marketing Process for $33 Billion Commercial Real Estate Loan Portfolio of Former Signature Bank, New York · For Release.Missing: lending | Show results with:lending
  19. [19]
    Signature Bank Writes Playbook To Outrun Rivals
    Mar 20, 2014 · In a highly commoditized industry with more than 7,000 competitors, Signature ranks as the 61st largest. It has recorded at least double-digit ...
  20. [20]
    Signature Bank's demise: Contagion or a problem with the business?
    Mar 15, 2023 · Signature Bank's collapse came stunningly fast, leaving behind the question of whether there was a fundamental flaw in the way it did business.
  21. [21]
    [PDF] 2020 - A Year Like No Other - Responsibility Reports
    Signature Bank has seen enormous growth despite 2020's unprecedented challenges. We concluded 2019 with over $50 billion in assets and as one of America's 40 ...
  22. [22]
    Signature Launches Institutional Payments Using Permissioned ...
    Dec 4, 2018 · The Signet Platform will open to commercial clients of Signature Bank on January 1, 2019 at 12:01 a.m. ET. At the time of launch the ...Missing: history timeline
  23. [23]
    Signature Bank Launches Real-Time Payments - PYMNTS.com
    Dec 5, 2018 · The platform was developed in partnership with blockchain company trueDigital Holdings, Signature noted, and will go live on Jan. 1, 2019.
  24. [24]
    Signature Bank Launches Its Digital Payments Platform, Signet ...
    Jun 23, 2020 · Introduced January 1, 2019, Signet, the first platform of its kind to be approved for use by the New York State Department of Financial Services ...
  25. [25]
    Signature Bank Unveils Proprietary Digital Payments Platform, Signet
    Dec 4, 2018 · The platform will be open to all commercial clients as of January 1, 2019. The Paul, Weiss team includes corporate partner Raphael Russo; and ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  26. [26]
    Developer of Signature Bank's 24/7 payment system Signet calls ...
    Apr 10, 2023 · Signet was a white-label version of TassatPay, a private, blockchain-based solution currently operational at five other banks, including Cogent ...
  27. [27]
    Signature Bank Unveils Proprietary Digital Payments Platform
    The platform will be open to all commercial clients from 1 January 2019. Signature Bank says that transactions made on the Signet Platform settle in real-time, ...
  28. [28]
    Signature Bank Adds Fedwire Feature to Its Signet™ Digital ...
    Apr 12, 2022 · Signet™ allows commercial clients to make real-time payments in U.S. dollars, 24/7/365 and was also the first solution to be approved for use ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  29. [29]
    Why This Bank Is Betting Its Future on Blockchain Payments
    Aug 20, 2020 · Signature Bank believes real-time payment capability is a must and that building it with blockchain technology provides an innovation edge.
  30. [30]
    [PDF] The Role of Cryptocurrency in the Failures of Silvergate, Silicon ...
    Apr 25, 2023 · Banking Crypto. Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Silvergate Bank, and Signature Bank all provided banking services to cryptocurrency firms in the ...
  31. [31]
    Why Signature Bank's Failure Is Worrying the Crypto Industry | TIME
    Mar 16, 2023 · New York-based Signature Bank was not exclusively a crypto bank: it also had a huge hand in real estate lending and law firm services. But ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] The first 24/7 payment platform, powered by blockchain technology ...
    Each Signet is representative of one U.S. dollar held in escrow at. Signature Bank. No Transaction Fees | No Transaction Limits | Real-Time Settlement. OTHER ...
  33. [33]
    Signature Bank Releases Payment Platform On Fireblocks
    Signature Bank has become the first bank to integrate with Fireblocks, and offer its clients access to the Signet blockchain-based payments platform.<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    Signature bank now servicing multiple crypto companies in the wake ...
    Mar 3, 2023 · Signature bank has become an institution of last resort for several crypto companies burned by Silvergate and FTX.
  35. [35]
    Cryptocurrency-Friendly Bank Faced AML Enforcement Before ...
    May 4, 2023 · The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was preparing a consent order against Signature Bank for “apparent violations” of US sanctions and anti-money laundering ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  36. [36]
    Signature Bank adopts caps to reduce concentration of crypto deposits
    Dec 7, 2022 · Bank is adopting a per-client deposit cap of at most 2% of total bank deposits. Signature Bank, long known as being friendly to crypto clients ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  37. [37]
    The fall of Signature Bank: A targeted attack on crypto banking?
    Some theorise that the bank was a victim of a targeted attack by regulators. The reason? Its friendly relationship with crypto.
  38. [38]
    Signature Bank Faced Criminal Probe Ahead of Firm's Collapse
    Mar 15, 2023 · US prosecutors were investigating Signature Bank's work with crypto clients before regulators suddenly seized the lender this past weekend ...
  39. [39]
    Recent Bank Failures and the Federal Regulatory Response - FDIC
    Mar 29, 2023 · Subsequently, in December 2022, Signature Bank announced that it would reduce its exposure to digital asset related deposits. ... As of December ...
  40. [40]
    Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris Announces New York ...
    Mar 12, 2023 · Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris announced today that the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) has taken possession of Signature Bank.
  41. [41]
    FDIC Establishes Signature Bridge Bank, N.A., as Successor to ...
    Mar 12, 2023 · The FDIC transferred all the deposits and substantially all of the assets of Signature Bank to Signature Bridge Bank, NA, a full-service bank that will be ...Missing: OCC | Show results with:OCC
  42. [42]
    Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC
    Mar 12, 2023 · We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering ...
  43. [43]
    FDIC Releases Report Detailing Supervision of the Former ...
    Apr 28, 2023 · This detailed analysis identifies clearly that “the root cause of [Signature Bank's] failure was poor management. [Signature Bank's] board ...Missing: seizure | Show results with:seizure
  44. [44]
    Subsidiary of New York Community Bancorp, Inc., to Assume ... - FDIC
    Mar 19, 2023 · The FDIC estimates the cost of the failure of Signature Bank to its Deposit Insurance Fund to be approximately $2.5 billion. The exact cost ...
  45. [45]
    OCC Conditionally Approves Flagstar Bank, N.A. to Purchase and ...
    Mar 20, 2023 · Signature Bank, New York, New York, was closed on March 12, 2023, by the New York State Department of Financial Services, which appointed ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  46. [46]
    A Look Under the Hood of Signature Bridge Bank, N.A. Sale to New ...
    Mar 28, 2023 · Here's what we know: What Flagstar Bought: $38.4 billion of SB assets, including loans of $12.9 billion, pursuant to a PAA.
  47. [47]
    New York Community Bank agrees to buy a large portion of ... - WUSF
    Mar 20, 2023 · The 40 branches of Signature Bank will become Flagstar Bank, starting Monday ... The deal will include the purchase of $38.4 billion in Signature ...Missing: transferred | Show results with:transferred
  48. [48]
    The Signature Bank Collapse: What You Need To Know | Bankrate
    Mar 19, 2023 · Signature Bank was seized by regulators on March 12, and on March 13 customer accounts had automatically been transferred to the newly formed, ...
  49. [49]
    FDIC sells most of failed Signature Bank to Flagstar | CNN Business
    Mar 19, 2023 · At the end of last year, Signature had more than $110 billion worth of assets, including $88.6 billion of deposits, showing how the run against ...
  50. [50]
    Signature Bank's Signet Platform Still Works, but Some Clients Have ...
    Mar 13, 2023 · Signet was launched on Jan. 1, 2019, as a proprietary blockchain-based digital payments platform. The service was integrated with digital asset ...<|separator|>
  51. [51]
    Signature Bank Collapse: Banking & Crypto Implications
    May 16, 2023 · The failure of SVB emphasized why strong bank capital matters. While the proximate cause of SVB's failure was a liquidity run, the underlying ...Missing: founding | Show results with:founding
  52. [52]
    What the Collapses of Signature Bank and Silvergate Capital Mean ...
    Jun 7, 2023 · And once Signature was closed for good, US federal regulators specifically cited concerns over the potential systemic risks posed by the crypto- ...
  53. [53]
    U.S. FDIC tells Signature Bank's crypto clients to close accounts by ...
    Mar 28, 2023 · The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC) has informed collapsed lender Signature Bank's (SBNY.O) crypto clients that they have until April 5 to close their ...
  54. [54]
    Signature, SVB, Silvergate failures: Effects on crypto sector - CNBC
    Mar 12, 2023 · The failure of crypto-focused banks once again showed the vulnerability of stablecoins, which can lose their peg in unusual financial ...
  55. [55]
    What Signature Bank Failure Means for Crypto, According to Experts
    Mar 14, 2023 · “Their failures created a crucial gap that could complicate access to crypto,” Kozyakov said. “With SVB holding over $5 billion for large crypto ...
  56. [56]
    Lessons Learned from the U.S. Regional Bank Failures of 2023 - FDIC
    May 17, 2024 · On Sunday March 12, just two days after the failure of SVB, the New York State bank regulator closed Signature Bank and appointed the FDIC as ...
  57. [57]
    Risky Bet on Crypto and a Run on Deposits Tank Signature Bank
    Mar 12, 2023 · Signature Bank, a New York financial institution with a big real estate lending business that had recently made a play to win cryptocurrency deposits, closed ...
  58. [58]
    2023 Bank Failures: Preliminary lessons learnt for resolution
    Oct 10, 2023 · This report describes the bank distress cases that occurred in March 2023 and authorities' approaches to address that distress.
  59. [59]
    After 2023 Bank Failures—Here's Our Roadmap for Improving Bank ...
    4 Mar 2025 · At Signature Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) raised concerns in 2022. But it similarly did not initiate enforcement ...