Banking

Big Banks and Dirty Money

Toronto-Dominion has joined the dubious club of large companies that have paid a penalty of $1 billion or more in a single case of misconduct. It achieved that distinction with the recent slew of announcements by the U.S. Justice Department and several financial regulators that the book was being thrown at the Canadian bank’s U.S. subsidiary TD Bank for widespread failures in meeting its obligations to prevent the use of its operations for money laundering by criminals and tax evaders.

TD Bank was hit with $1.9 billion in criminal fines by the DOJ and more than a billion from the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. It all came to $3.09 billion in penalties. Adding these to Toronto-Dominion’s previous cases documented in Violation Tracker raises the bank’s aggregate penalties in the U.S. to nearly $4 billion, far and away the highest total for any parent company headquartered in Canada.

Looking specifically at penalties for anti-money-laundering (AML) deficiencies, Toronto-Dominion is now at the top of the list in that category, overtaking Denmark’s Danske Bank, which has hit with $2 billion in criminal fines by the DOJ in 2022.

Other banks with the highest penalties for AML and related Bank Secrecy Act violations include: JPMorgan Chase ($811 million), HSBC ($665 million), U.S. Bancorp ($528 million), Deutsche Bank ($491 million), and Capital One ($390 million). The non-bank with the largest total is Western Union at $740 million.

AML violations are not limited to the United States. In the new Violation Tracker Global, which covers cases against large corporations in 45 countries (including the U.S.), AML is one of the most frequent offenses, with total penalties equal to more than $20 billion imposed by regulators and courts in three dozen countries.

The U.S. by far contributes the most ($15 billion) to that total. Other countries with the most AML penalties against large corporations include Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, each with between $1 billion and $2 billion. Next are Denmark and Sweden with totals between $500 million and $700 million.

Outside the United States, the largest individual AML cases include: a $916 million penalty in Australia against Westpac Banking Corporation; a $900 million penalty in the Netherlands against ING Bank; a $675 million penalty in Denmark against Danske Bank; a $575 million penalty in the Netherlands against ABN AMRO; a $529 million penalty in Australia against Commonwealth Bank; a $397 million penalty in Sweden against Swedbank; and a $350 million penalty against NatWest in the United Kingdom.

Toronto-Dominion had one AML penalty outside the U.S.—a penalty equal to less than $7 million in its home country of Canada.

These figures suggest that large banks everywhere have a problem complying with AML restrictions. That is probably because doing business with clients flush with dubious cash is simply too lucrative for them to resist. Large penalties imposed in the U.S. and a few other countries may have some deterrent effect, but regulators and prosecutors need to find more effective forms of punishment.

Note: The new TD Bank cases will be added to Violation Tracker and Violation Tracker Global as part of updates that are being prepared.

Swiping Fees

For the past two decades, groups of merchants have been suing Mastercard and Visa for charging excessive credit card processing fees, also known as swipe fees. That effort has now paid off with a tentative class action settlement that will reduce the fees by an estimated $30 billion over the next five years.

This deal is on top of about $6 billion the companies previously agreed to pay in damages. Together, the cases represent one of the biggest business litigation settlements ever.

As large as the amounts are, they are not putting too much of a dent in the profitability of Mastercard and Visa, which together rake in about $100 billion a year from merchants and together enjoy about $30 billion in annual profits.

The issue of swipe fees has come up in connection with the proposed acquisition of Discover, the perennial also-ran of the credit card world, by Capital One. In its announcement of the deal, Capital One claimed it would enable Discover “to be more competitive with the largest payments networks and payments companies.” It is making similar arguments in its filings with regulators to gain approval for the purchase.

While Capital One may not have caused as much grief as Visa and Mastercard, its track record shows it cannot claim to be the savior of consumers and small businesses. In 2012, for example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau fined the company $25 million and ordered it to refund $140 million to customers following an investigation of deceptive tactics used in marketing credit card add-on products.

Capital One has also paid out tens of millions of dollars in settlements in class action lawsuits alleging abuses such improperly raising credit card interest rates after promoting low rates and charging unfair overdraft and balance inquiry fees.

The largest penalties paid by Capital One have been in cases involving deficiencies in its anti-money-laundering practices. In 2018 it was fined $100 million by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for failing to file required suspicious activity reports.

In 2021 the bank was fined $290 million by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for doing business with check-cashing services known to be linked to organized crime in New York and New Jersey.

Capital One may not have accumulated penalties to the same extent as larger banks such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, but its total payouts have reached nearly $1 billion.

If it succeeds in buying Discover, it will acquire a company with $275 million in penalties of its own. Most of that comes from a 2012 case in which the CFPB fined Discover $14 million and ordered it to refund $200 million to customers said to have been subjected to deceptive marketing tactics regarding credit card add-on products. In other words, practices similar to those for which Capital One was penalized that year.

The solution to excessive swipe fees will come not from allowing another player with a questionable record to join Visa and Mastercard in dominating the payments market, but rather through antitrust and other regulatory action restricting the predatory practices of that market.

Eliminating the Late Fee Bonanza

A substantial number of working-class Americans have decided that the Biden Administration is not acting in their interest and is instead serving the elites. One area in which that notion most strongly conflicts with reality is the regulation of consumer financial services.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an agency that has consistently stood up to giant banks, payday lenders and mortgage servicers. In its latest move, the CFPB just issued a rule limiting the late fees large credit card companies can charge to $8 a month.

That’s compared to the current norm of around $32, which generates an estimated $14 billion annual profit for the issuers. The CFPB estimates the cap will deprive banks of more than two-thirds of this bonanza, which has grown despite federal legislation passed in 2009 designed to ban excessive charges.

It is thus no surprise that the credit card industry is up in arms. Trade associations are trotting out fatuous claims that the lower fees will actually harm consumers while preparing lawsuits to challenge the cap.

Banks are unlikely to win much public support in their counter-offensive. That is because they have a long history of mistreating cardholders every way possible.

The CFPB knows this only too well. Over the past dozen years, the agency has brought a series of cases challenging credit card abuses and imposing hefty penalties against the culprits. Here are some examples:

In 2015 the CFPB fined Citibank $35 million and ordered it to provide an estimated $700 million in relief to consumers harmed by allegedly illegal practices related to credit card add-on products and services. Roughly seven million consumer accounts were said to be affected by deceptive marketing, billing, and administration of debt protection and credit monitoring products. The agency also said a Citibank subsidiary deceptively charged expedited payment fees to nearly 1.8 million consumer accounts during collection calls.

Three years later, the CFPB concluded that Citibank was violating the Truth in Lending Act by failing to reevaluate and reduce the annual percentage rates (APRs) for approximately 1.75 million consumer credit card accounts consistent with regulatory requirements, and by failing to have reasonable written policies and procedures to conduct the APR reevaluations consistent with regulation. Citi was ordered to provide $335 million in restitution.

In 2012 the CFPB and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ordered Discover Bank to refund approximately $200 million to more than 3.5 million consumers and pay a $14 million civil money penalty after an investigation found the bank misled consumers into paying for various credit card add-on products.

That same year, the CFPB ordered three American Express subsidiaries to refund an estimated $85 million to approximately 250,000 customers for illegal card practices. This was the result of a multi-part federal investigation which, according to the agency, “found that at every stage of the consumer experience, from marketing to enrollment to payment to debt collection, American Express violated consumer protection laws.” American Express was also required to pay a penalty of $14 million to the CFPB.

Last year, the CFPB ordered Bank of America to pay $90 million in penalties for a variety of abusive practices, such as withholding reward bonuses explicitly promised to credit card customers.

Some of these practices may have been changed, but the industry, with its exorbitant interest rates, is far from a paragon of corporate virtue. The cap on late fees, if it survives court challenges, will help to tip the scales back in favor of customers. The only question is whether they will pay attention to who brought this about.

Banking on Stereotypes

There are about half a million people in the United States with Armenian surnames. Managers at Citigroup apparently decided that all of them are criminals and went to great lengths to deny them credit cards.

That accusation is the basis of a $25 million penalty just imposed on Citi by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency alleges that supervisors at the bank ordered employees to discriminate against credit applicants deemed to be of Armenian origin based on the spelling of their family name—especially those living in and around Glendale, California, home to the country’s largest concentration of Armenian-Americans. To hide the blacklisting, applicants were given bogus reasons when their applications were denied.

Individual Armenian-Americans have been involved in organized crime. Earlier this year, a reputed Armenian mafia figure in the Los Angeles area was sentenced to 40 years in prison in connection with a scheme to fraudulently claim more than $1 billion in refundable renewable fuel tax credits.

Yet the existence of mobsters who belong to a particular ethnic group is hardly a justifiable basis for discriminating against everyone who shares that national origin. Citi’s alleged practices constituted a textbook violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

The CFPB enforcement action is a reminder that not all corporate discriminatory practices involve hiring, pay levels, promotion and other conditions of employment. Companies can also discriminate against customers based on race, gender, national origin, etc. In Violation Tracker we document more than 500 such cases dating back to 2000.

Many of these involve financial institutions accused of unfair treatment of African-American and Latino borrowers. Some of these are holdovers of the longstanding practice of redlining, in which credit is denied to those living in communities with demographic characteristics banks regard as undesirable. Earlier this year, Park National Bank paid $9 million to settle Justice Department allegations it redlined parts of Columbus, Ohio.

There have also been some cases involving other minorities. In 2016 Toyota Motor Credit was fined $21.9 million by CFPB for charging higher interest rates to Asian and Pacific Islander borrowers (as well as African-Americans) on automobile loans.

The cases I found that were closest to Citi matter were actions involving discrimination against Arab-Americans in the wake of 9/11. The most relevant was a 2006 settlement reached by the Massachusetts Attorney General and Bank of America to resolve allegations that Fleet Bank, which BofA acquired in 2004, had improperly closed the accounts of customers with Arabic names, supposedly to guard against the channeling of funds to terrorist groups.

It is ironic to see the likes BofA and Citi portraying themselves as so concerned about potential bad actors that they stereotype entire ethnic groups. If any group deserves to be so stereotyped it is the big banks themselves.

BofA is by far the most penalized company in the United States, with over $87 billion in cumulative fines and settlements since 2000. Citi ranks sixth with nearly $27 billion in penalties. They need to clean up their own houses rather than making assumptions about the behavior of others.

Bank Robbery

For the past few years, it was easy to get the impression that Wells Fargo was an outlier when it came to the mistreatment of customers. That bank paid billions in penalties for the creation of bogus fee-generating accounts and the application of various other types of illegitimate charges.

Now it turns out that Bank of America belongs in the same category. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have just announced that BofA is being fined $150 million for similar unsavory behavior.

CFPB and OCC cite abuses of three main types. First, BofA is said to have engaged in the practice that made Wells Fargo notorious: the illegal enrollment of customers in accounts without their knowledge or consent. In order to do this, BofA improperly accessed consumer credit reports.

Second, BofA deployed what the regulators call a double-dipping scheme to harvest junk fees, which included charging a customer more than once for the same declined transaction. Finally, the bank is accused of luring credit card customers with special offers of cash and points, only to renege on those promises.

Regulators were not the first to bring these swindles to light. For years, BofA was sued repeatedly in class action lawsuits brought on behalf of customers. Just last month, I reported that in a compilation of consumer-related lawsuits dating back to 2000 prepared for inclusion in Violation Tracker, BofA had paid out more in settlements and damages–$3.2 billion—than any other corporation. These payouts came in 29 different class actions, a number also higher than any other company.

It will be interesting to see if the BofA revelations generate as much controversy as did those involving Wells Fargo, which not only faced criminal as well as civil charges but also received the unusual punishment of being barred by the Federal Reserve from growing in size until it improved its compliance record. The Fed also forced out several members of the bank’s board of directors.

The consequences for BofA may be less dire. I fear that these banking abuses may be losing the ability to shock the conscience. There was, for example, little uproar last year when CFPB accused U.S. Bank of engaging in the bogus account scam and fined it $37.5 million.

BofA, for its part, may just brush off the $150 million penalty it is paying to CFPB and OCC. After all, that sum may seem insignificant to a corporation that has accumulated an astounding $87 billion in fines and settlements since 2000. That total is far and away the largest among all corporations. As shown in Violation Tracker, it is more than twice as much as has been paid by second-ranking JPMorgan Chase and it makes Wells Fargo’s $27 billion total seem puny in comparison.

Even if BofA treats this new case as no big deal, the rest of us should not become blasé about the bank’s abysmal record.

Wells Fargo Pays More for Its Sins

When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced in 2016 that it was fining Wells Fargo $100 million for creating fee-generating customer accounts without permission, bank executives may have thought they could simply pay the penalty and move on.

Instead, Wells has had to contend with a series of regulatory and legal consequences. The latest is a $1 billion settlement the bank has just agreed to pay to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by shareholders accusing it of misrepresenting the progress it had made in improving its internal controls and compliance practices. The deal ranks among the largest securities settlements of all time.

In between the initial CFPB action and the new lawsuit resolution, Wells confronted the following:

In 2018 the Federal Reserve forced out several board members and took the unusual step of barring Wells from growing in size until it improved its compliance. It is telling that the asset cap is still in place.
That same year, Wells paid $575 million to settle litigation over the bogus accounts brought by state attorneys general.
In 2020 the U.S. Justice Department announced that Wells would pay $3 billion to resolve potential criminal and civil liability, but the bank was allowed to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement rather than having to plead guilty. The Trump DOJ also declined to bring charges against any individual executives.

While the monetary penalties paid by Wells are not trivial, they are far from punishing for an institution with nearly $2 trillion in assets and $13 billion in annual profits. They also do not seem to have had much of a deterrent effect.

In 2022 the CFPB took new action against the bank, compelling it to pay a $1.7 billion penalty and provide $2 billion in redress to customers to resolve allegations that it engaged in a variety of new misconduct. Wells was found to have repeatedly misapplied loan payments, wrongfully foreclosed on homes, improperly repossessed vehicles, and incorrectly assessed interest and fees, including surprise overdraft charges. Some 16 million customer accounts were said to have been cheated one way or another.

That 2020 deferred prosecution agreement means that Wells has in effect been on probation. Why, in light of the CFPB case, has the bank not been found to be in violation of that agreement? Is it simply because Wells is now focusing its alleged misconduct on real accounts rather than the fake ones it had been creating? That would be like letting a mugger off the hook for using a knife rather than gun.

Not only should Wells have its probation revoked, but it should undergo something analogous to what the FDIC does when a bank is in financial disarray. Federal regulators should find Wells to be in ethical disarray and take it over while fundamental changes are made to bring it back to some semblance of compliance.

The alternative is letting a rogue institution continue to prey on its customers in any way it can.

Goldman Gives In

The verdict in the Trump case was not the only court victory against sexism this week. Lawyers for women who worked in securities and investment banking positions at Goldman Sachs announced that the Wall Street giant has agreed to pay $215 million to settle a long-running gender discrimination case.

Some 2,800 current and former employees at Goldman will share in the settlement, which resolves a case first filed back in 2010. Along with the payout, the company will take steps to improve gender equity in pay and promotions.

For years, Goldman strenuously denied allegations that its personnel evaluation system systematically placed women at lower rankings than men, and it aggressively sought to reverse the certification of the class in 2018. Those efforts were unsuccessful, eventually resulting in the scheduling of a trial in June of this year. Trials are rare in discrimination class actions, since juries are thought to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs.

Goldman finally decided to give in, becoming the latest large company to settle a class action gender discrimination lawsuit. Other cases during the past two decades documented in Violation Tracker include the following:

In 2022 Sterling Jewelers paid $175 million to settle litigation alleging that for years it had discriminated against tens of thousands of women in its pay and promotion practices.
In 2010 drug giant Novartis paid $175 million to settle charges of gender discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination.
In 2022 Google agreed to pay $118 million to settle class action litigation alleging it discriminated against women in its salary practices.
In 2007 Morgan Stanley paid $46 million to a class of about 3,000 women to settle gender discrimination allegations.
In 2018 the retail chain Family Dollar paid $45 million to more than 37,000 former and current managers who alleged they were paid less than their male counterparts. That case took nearly 15 years to get resolved.
In 2004 Boeing paid more than $40 million to a class of female workers who alleged they were denied desirable job assignments, promotional opportunities, and management positions.
In 2013 Merrill Lynch paid more than $38 million to a group of women employed as financial advisors who said they were discriminated against in pay and promotion.
In 2014 United Airlines paid $36.5 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that the company engaged in gender discrimination by requiring female flight attendants to weigh less than comparable male ones.
In 2008 Smith Barney paid $33 million to women formerly employed as financial advisors who claimed they were paid less than their male counterparts.
In 2011 Wells Fargo paid $32 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that its Wachovia Securities subsidiary gave female financial advisers fewer opportunities than their male co-workers with respect to promotions, assignments, signing bonuses and compensation.

What this list show is that gender discrimination has been an issue in a wide range of companies and occupations, but sexism has been especially problematic in the traditionally macho world of Wall Street. Now that perhaps the most elite firm in the industry has capitulated, the worst abuses may finally come to an end.

Rogue Rescuer

Once again federal regulators have turned to JPMorgan Chase to rescue a failing smaller bank. For the moment, the customers of First Republic Bank may be pleased that their accounts are being taken over by a larger and more stable institution.

Yet they may not be quite so happy to learn that their savior has a much worse record when it comes to compliance with laws and regulations. As shown in Violation Tracker, First Republic was named in only a handful of enforcement actions and paid penalties of less than $4 million. JPMorgan, on the other hand, has 236 Violation Tracker entries and has paid over $36 billion in fines and settlements.

The contrast with First Republic is partly a matter of size. JPM’s vast operations give it many more opportunities to get into trouble. Those operations have included the marketing of residential mortgage-backed securities which turned out to be toxic and which resulted in legal actions that cost the company billions. Some of these entanglements were inherited by JPM when it took over Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual in 2008.

Yet JPM has also had problems when it comes to the treatment of its own customers in the course of routine banking functions. This has become clear to me in the course of assembling data for the latest category of class action litigation to be added to Violation Tracker: consumer protection lawsuits.

The collection is not yet done, but I have already identified more than a dozen settlements in which JPM has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars. Among these are the following:

* In 2012 JPM agreed to pay $100 million to settle litigation alleging it improperly raised interest rates on loan balances transferred to credit cards.

* In 2020 JPM agreed to pay more than $60 million to settle litigation alleging it overcharged customers serving in the military, in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

* In 2014 JPM agreed to pay $300 million to settle litigation alleging it pushed mortgage borrowers into force-placed insurance coverage whose cost was inflated due to kickbacks.

* In 2012 JPM agreed to pay $110 million to settle litigation concerning improper overdraft fees resulting from the way that debit-card transactions were processed.

* In 2011 JPM agreed to pay up to $7.8 million to settle litigation alleging it charged credit card customers hidden fees after deceptively marketing special deals on balance transfers and short-term check loans.

* In 2014 JPM and several subsidiaries agreed to pay more than $18 million to settle litigation alleging the use of misleading loan documents to steer borrowers to adjustable-rate mortgages.

* In 2018 JPM agreed to pay over $11 million to settle litigation alleging it improperly charged interest on Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgages that were already paid off.

These were all cases brought by private plaintiffs. JPM also paid hundreds of millions more in consumer protection fines and settlements to federal and state agencies. Among these was a 2013 case brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in which JPM paid a $20 million penalty to the agency and over $300 million in refunds to two million customers for what were said to be illegal credit card practices.

There is widespread concern that rescue deals are allowing a too-big-to-fail bank like JPM to grow even larger. Yet we should also worry that more and more of the population is being forced to do business with megabanks that seem to regard themselves as too big to have to comply with laws that protect consumers.

A Marriage of Two Tainted Banks

The acquisition of struggling Credit Suisse by its rival UBS may calm the international banking waters, but it will do nothing to improve the compliance profile of the Swiss financial services sector. That’s because both Credit Suisse and UBS have seriously tainted records. Combining them will simply put all those problems under one roof.

Let’s start with Credit Suisse. Its problems extend back at least to the late 1980s, when it was named as one of the banks that allegedly laundered money for a Turkish-Lebanese drug ring. Credit Suisse also played a role in the Reagan Administration’s Iran/Contra scandal.

In the 1990s Credit Suisse was one of the Swiss banks sued in the United States by relatives of Holocaust victims who had been unable to access assets held by the banks for decades. There were also charges that the banks profited by receiving deposits of funds that had been looted by the Nazis. In 1998 the banks agreed to pay a total of $1.25 billion in restitution. The judge in the case later accused the banks of stonewalling in paying out the settlement.

After it acquired a controlling interest in First Boston in the late 1980s and formed CS First Boston, Credit Suisse ended up with more U.S. legal entanglements. CSFB was a target of U.S. divestment activists in the early 1990s because of Credit Suisse’s operations in apartheid-era South Africa. Later that decade, it was one of the investment banks sued for their role in the 1994 bankruptcy of California’s Orange County. In 1998 CSFB agreed to pay $870,000 to settle SEC charges of having misled investors in Orange County bonds and then settled a suit brought against it by the county for $52.5 million.

In 2003, CSFB was one of ten major investment firms that agreed to pay a total of $1.4 billion to settle federal and state charges involving conflicts of interest between their research and investment banking activities. CSFB’s share was $200 million.

In 2009 Credit Suisse agreed to forfeit $268 million to the United States and $268 million to the New York County District Attorney’s Office to resolve criminal charges that it violated economic sanctions in its dealings with customers from countries such as Iran and Sudan.

In 2014 the U.S. Justice Department fined Credit Suisse $1.1 billion and ordered it to pay $666 million in restitution to the IRS after the bank pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring to help U.S. customers evade taxes through the use of offshore accounts.

In 2017 the Justice Department announced a $5.3 billion settlement with Credit Suisse concerning its marketing of toxic mortgage-backed securities a decade earlier. The settlement included a $2.5 billion civil penalty and $2.8 billion in relief to distressed homeowners and affected communities.

Credit Suisse has paid hundreds of millions more in penalties in other cases involving foreign bribery, foreign exchange market manipulation, defrauding investors and much more. Its penalty total in Violation Tracker is more than $11 billion.

And the scandals continue. For example, Credit Suisse is currently embroiled in a corruption case involving the tuna fishing industry in Mozambique.

UBS has a record that is no better. Union Bank of Switzerland and Swiss Bank Corporation, which merged in 1998 to form UBS, were both involved in that same money laundering scandal with Credit Suisse. They were both also embroiled in controversies over investments in South Africa and their polices regarding the accounts of Holocaust victims.

UBS also entered the U.S. market (through the purchase of PaineWebber) and was implicated in the conflict-of-interest scandals. It, too, was prosecuted by the Justice Department for conspiring to aid tax evasion, paying $780 million in penalties.

In 2008 UBS agreed to buy back $11 billion in securities and pay $150 million in penalties as part of the resolution of multi-state litigation alleging it misled customers in the marketing and sale of auction rate securities.

It has paid hundreds of millions more in fines and settlements in cases dealing with financial market manipulation and other offenses. Including that $11 billion securities buyback, its Violation Tracker penalty total is over $17 billion.

In short, the marriage of UBS and Credit Suisse will bring together two banks with highly problematic records. The combined company should work not only to help stabilize financial markets but also to address its legacy of misconduct.

Woke Capitalism or Sleepy Oversight?

Some of the same people who are trying to convince us that January 6 was a peaceful sightseeing outing and that the situation in Ukraine is a minor territorial dispute have come up with a remarkable explanation for the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. They claim it is the result of what they call “woke capitalism.”

Politicians such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and House Oversight Chair James Comer are echoing claims by propagandist Tucker Carlson that SVB’s collapse was the result of its involvement with ESG—environmental, social and governance policies meant to promote objectives such as sustainability and diversity.

There are two problems with this claim. The first is that SVB was hardly a leader in the ESG world. The bank’s preoccupation was apparently to ingratiate itself with venture capitalists, private equity investors and start-up entrepreneurs, whether or not they were pursuing social goals. It was also chummy with California wineries. SVB wanted to be a power in Silicon Valley, not a crusader. Like most banks, it made some ESG-type investments, but they were a small part of its portfolio.

The other problem is that there is no connection between ESG practices and the forces that led to SVB’s demise. Based on what has come to light so far, it appears what happened at the bank was largely a result of poor risk management. SVB failed to pay adequate attention to the consequences of having loaded up on long-term government debt securities that were rapidly losing value at a time of escalating interest rates.

Along with that poor internal risk management, there was apparently a failure of regulatory oversight. To some extent, this was the fault of the Trump Administration and Congress, which in 2018 watered down the Dodd-Frank Act and exempted banks of SVB’s size from intensive scrutiny.

As pointed out by the New York Times, Moody’s was more alert to the perils at SVB than the regulators or the bank’s own executives. Last week the credit rating agency contacted the bank’s CEO Greg Becker to warn him that SVB’s bonds were in danger of being downgraded to junk status.

This set off a scramble by SVB to raise more capital. Once depositors got wind of this, they began emptying their accounts, many of which had balances above the $250,000 limit normally insured by the FDIC. Soon there was a full-blown run on the bank, prompting regulators to take over SVB and shut it down. The Biden Administration then bailed out the depositors in whole, using assessments from other banks. ESG has nothing to do with any of this.

As this is being written, the business news is focusing on problems at Credit Suisse. It will be interesting to see if the U.S. Right tries to apply the woke label to that situation as well. Although it gives lip service to ESG, Credit Suisse has a track record of less than enlightened practices. Two decades ago, it was being sued over its investments in apartheid-era South Africa. It has a history of lending to oil and gas projects and has been slow to respond to demands to reduce that exposure.

As shown in Violation Tracker, Credit Suisse’s record in the U.S. includes numerous cases in which it paid penalties to resolve allegations relating to the facilitation of tax evasion, foreign bribery and other misconduct. Its U.S. penalty total is over $11 billion.

Come to think of it, the Right will probably decide that a bank with a history of making money from racism, fossil fuels, tax evasion and bribery is worthy of support.

The woke capitalism critique cannot be taken seriously as an explanation of what happened at SVB. Yet there is the danger that it will serve to divert attention for some away from the real problems: reckless bank management and sleepy financial regulation.