加密友好银行 Silvergate 为何暴雷?大十倍的 Signature Bank 有危险吗?

吴说区块链Publicado em 2023-03-10Última atualização em 2023-03-10

Resumo

加密友好银行 Silvergate 成立于 1986 年,数十年来一直是美国加州拉霍亚一家不起眼的社区银行。这一切都在 2020 /2021 年的加密牛市中发生了变化。

加密友好银行 Silvergate Capital Corp(SI,以下称为“ Silvergate”)成立于 1986 年,数十年来一直是美国加州拉霍亚一家不起眼的社区银行。这一切都在 2020 /2021 年的加密牛市中发生了变化。

“”

Silvergate 在 2019年 IPO 之后,其银行存款翻了整整 7 倍,从 20 亿美元增至 140 亿美元,股价翻了 8 倍,从每股 13 美元飙升至 220 美元。但 SI 股价自 2021 年 11 月达到顶点以来,重挫 97% 跌至 5 美元,面临崩溃破产。

“”

到底发生了什么?

“”

Silvergate 简介

“”

Silvergate 是一家以其领先的加密货币特许经营而闻名的公开交易银行。其专有的 Silvergate Gate Exchange 网络(SEN)是一个技术平台,连接了 1600 多个加密货币交易所、金融机构、对冲基金和零售参与者。由于使用 24/7 的正常运行时间和即时法币转账,且连接了全球的加密市场参与者,SEN 成为加密行业法币需求的首选银行。

“”

Silvergate 独家的 SEN 网络使该银行的存款从约 20 亿美元不可思议地增加到 2021 年 Q4 的 140 亿美元。Silvergate 和 Signature Bank 的签名集(Signet)都大幅增长,因为它们实际上是美国仅有的两家进入全球加密生态的银行。

好的,这听起来很棒:但 Silvergate 在牛市中却自毁前程。哪里出了错?

“”

首先,让我们快速了解银行如何赚钱。

“”

银行如何赚钱?

“”

从最基本的角度来看,银行是简单的业务,以股本 +负债(主要是存款)的形式获得资本并获得资产(如贷款和购买证券)。

“”

股权 +负债:银行从一群投资者的股本开始,并将存款纳入最高股权的股本(约 10 倍;监管机构的严格限制是对资本化金融机构的要求)。银行通过向零售和商业客户提供服务,例如支票、储蓄、账单、贷款等来吸引存款。Silvergate 等专业银行通过类似 SEN Network 的独家产品吸引存款。银行还通过支付利息来吸引存款。这种是银行计息(IB)存款,与非计息银行(NIB)存款,IB 存款相对低质,且更加浮动,因为其会寻找最高出价者。

“”“

资产:凭借这笔股本和存款资本,银行向企业、房地产项目(如抵押贷款)或消费者(如汽车贷款)贷款,或者购买证券,例如财政债券、市政债券、抵押证券(MBS)或评级高的公司债券。银行通常避免买入垃圾债券和股票等“风险”证券。作为高度杠杆的企业,银行无法承担在资产负债表的资产方面造成严重的损失,资产损失会损害银行的股本,更甚者会殃及存款人。用存款人的钱冒险,银行会被监管部门关停。

”“

以下是一份简单的资产负债表和损益表,适用 1 亿美元的资产银行。请注意,银行收益的最大驱动力是其存款特许经营权的规模及其净利息收益率 NIM ,其赚钱的利差以资产收益率减去存款成本。

拥有快速增长且廉价存款基础的银行非常有价值

”“

Silvergate 在加密上升周期中完美契合了这种模式。加密储户的现金涌入加密生态系统,并愿意无需利息通过 Silvergate 持有法币,以换取银行专有的 SEN 网络。廉价存款的显着增长导致 SI 的盈利能力和股价在 2020 和 2021年飙升:

银行如何为自己埋雷:信贷爆炸和久期错配

”“

银行接受存款、发放贷款和购买证券。就是这么简单...怎么会有人搞砸呢?

”“

当银行损害资产负债表的资产方面并被迫承担股东权益损失时,就会陷入困境。除欺诈外,银行可以通过两种方式做到这一点:(1 )信贷爆炸和(2)久期错配。

”“

信贷爆炸:银行发放不良贷款或购买不良证券。换句话说,从无法履行其义务的不良交易对手那里获得资产,从而导致损失。巨额贷款和安全损失造成了巨大的金融危机,迫使美联储救助许多大型金融机构,否则全球金融体系将面临崩溃的风险。持有最差贷款和证券的银行和金融机构的股东,如雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)、全美金融公司(Countrywide)和贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)被淘汰,因为其资产负债表资产方面的损失远远大于银行的股本。

”“

久期错配:当银行被迫在甩卖中亏本出售资产以满足存款人在银行挤兑期间的赎回时,就会发生久期错配。以足够高的折扣出售足够多的资产,银行的股本可以在眨眼间消失。

”“

在 FTX 崩溃后,银行挤兑期间的久期错配是导致 Silvergate 倒闭的原因。

”“

Silvergate 为何暴雷:被迫以巨额亏损出售长期资产

”“

随着 Silvergate 的资产负债表在加密牛市期间迅速增长,该公司收购了数十亿美元的长期市政债券和抵押贷款支持证券(MBS)。不幸的是,对于 Silvergate 来说,利率在整个 2022 年迅速上升,由于长期债券在利率上升时贬值,大大降低了其证券投资组合的价值。

”“

截至 2022 年第三季度末,Silvergate 的证券账簿上有超过 10 亿美元的未实现亏损。Silvergate 显然是在不利的时机收购了长期资产。

但是无论如何,损失是未实现的。只要 Silvergate 存款人将钱保留在平台上,而 Silvergate 可以把债券持有到到期,事情也许就会好起来?

”“

教科书式的银行挤兑。在 FTX 于 2022 年 4 月破产后,Silvergate 储户惊慌失措地急于提取资金。在 2022 年第四季度,Silvergate 存款减少了 8 亿美元,单季度下降了 68%。

”“

为了满足存款人的赎回,Silvergate 被迫出售了过去一两年难以收购的 60 亿美元证券,成本为 70 亿美元。结果,该公司损失了约 9 亿美元的证券,在此过程中抹去了 Silvergate 70%的普通股。

”“

存款的急剧减少和 9 亿美元的已实现证券损失削弱了 Silvergate 的股东权益和盈利能力:

Silvergate 还提请从联邦住房贷款银行(FHLB)的紧急贷款计划中筹集了43 亿美元。根据我与业内人士的谈话,除了利用昂贵的融资来源外,Silvergate 的银行挤兑还让监管机构感到不满。将客户存款置于风险之中是银行监管机构的主要禁忌。

”“

最近有消息称,Silvergate 不得不在第一季度出售更多证券并关闭其 SEN 网络,这可能表明监管机构正在遗憾地终结 Silvergate 的加密野心。

”“

Signature Bank 会面临类似的风险吗?不太可能。

”“

Silvergate 的加密银行同行 Signature Bank(SBNY)经常被谣传是加密监管打击中的“下一只鞋”。我认为不太可能出现 Silvergate 式的银行挤兑和监管冲击,原因如下:

”“

1. Signature Bank 的规模要大得多,而且更加多样化。截至第四季度末,Signature 拥有 1100 亿美元资产,规模比 Silvergate的 110 亿美元资产大 11 倍。在其 890 亿美元的存款中, 只有 180 亿美元或 20% 与加密货币有关。相比之下,Silvergate 的存款特许经营实际上是 100% 加密货币。

”“

2. Signature 的资产负债表流动性要强得多。Signature 拥有 340 亿美元的流动资产(90亿美元现金加上 260 亿美元的公允价值证券)。这几乎是 Signature 的 180 亿美元加密存款敞口的 2 倍。如果出现加密存款挤兑,Signature 将能够以最小的证券损失满足赎回。

”“

3. Signature 与监管机构有着更长的历史。这更具投机性,但我相信该银行不会像 Silvergate 那样受到同样的监管打击。正如该公司在回应《华尔街日报》的一篇文章时强调的那样,Signature 与 FHLB 有着悠久的历史,并定期利用其贷款服务。相比之下,Silvergate 在恐慌中利用了 FHLB。

”“

Signature 具有约 20% 的加密存款敞口和 2 倍的存款敞口流动性

结论:不要用变化无常的加密存款为长期资产提供资金

”“

如果 Silvergate 使用客户存款来购买现金和短期国债,而不是长期市政债券和抵押贷款支持证券,Silvergate 本可以避免这种不幸的结果。高度善变的加密存款与对利率变动敏感的长期资产之间的不匹配导致 Silvergate 遭受巨额损失。有了现金和短期国债,Silvergate 本可以满足客户的赎回,避免严重的股权减值,并且不利用 FHLB 紧急贷款计划。值得注意的是,加密存款外逃的风险正是 USDC 用流动性极强的 20% 现金/80% 3 个月 T bills 的结构来构建其储备的原因。

Leituras Relacionadas

MoneyGram: Why Did We Launch Our Own Stablecoin?

MoneyGram, a global leader in cross-border remittances for over 80 years, has launched its own stablecoin, MGUSD. The initiative aims to evolve from single-transaction services to becoming a more integral part of users' financial lives. By allowing customers to hold a stable US dollar balance within the MoneyGram app, MGUSD enables not only remittances but also everyday spending, currency exchange, cash access, and future financial services. Targeting the billions globally who face challenges like currency volatility or lack of bank accounts, MGUSD leverages Stellar blockchain technology with a self-custody wallet architecture. This gives users control over their assets while providing a secure, compliant experience through a trusted brand. The approach focuses on solving existing customer pain points within MoneyGram's established network, rather than competing for broad crypto market liquidity. A key advantage is MoneyGram's hybrid model, combining digital services with the world's largest physical network for crypto-to-cash conversions. The stablecoin also modernizes the company's internal infrastructure, streamlining treasury management and partner settlements, with annual forex volume via stablecoins already reaching $2 billion. The project was delivered in about a year, driven by a reorganization into agile, cross-functional teams that operate with startup-like speed while leveraging decades of institutional expertise. Partners include Stablecoin (issuance), Crossmint (wallet APIs), Fireblocks (enterprise treasury), m0 (smart contracts), and the Stellar network. MoneyGram emphasizes that enhancing direct consumer offerings strengthens its partner ecosystem. The future direction is clear: to provide users worldwide with stable value storage, better financial tools, and greater control over their funds through a trusted, existing network.

Foresight NewsHá 27m

MoneyGram: Why Did We Launch Our Own Stablecoin?

Foresight NewsHá 27m

BIP-110 Controversy Intensifies: Bitcoin May Face Its Most Divisive Hard Fork Battle in Years

Bitcoin is approaching a critical block height of 961,632, which could activate the controversial BIP-110 proposal. This proposal aims to restrict the amount of non-financial data, such as inscriptions and other large data payloads, within Bitcoin transactions. Supporters, including some node operators and Bitcoin purists, argue that BIP-110 is necessary to preserve Bitcoin's core function as a monetary settlement layer by reducing network congestion and node operational burdens caused by non-essential data. They frame it as a correction to keep the network true to its original purpose. However, critics, including prominent figures like Blockstream's Adam Back and developer Jameson Lopp, warn that the proposal's implementation mechanism is dangerously flawed. They highlight that its low 55% miner signaling threshold, coupled with a contentious enforcement mechanism allowing nodes to unilaterally reject non-compliant blocks, significantly increases the risk of a chain split. Opponents argue this sets a dangerous precedent for transaction censorship, undermines Bitcoin's protocol neutrality, and creates excessive uncertainty for developers and businesses, especially since the rule is proposed as a temporary one-year measure. Market analysts, such as those from Bitfinex, suggest a full-scale network split is unlikely due to a lack of broad economic consensus. Major mining pools remain neutral, and adoption of the new rules is minimal. They view the situation more as a governance stress test. The primary risk is operational disruption: if a minority chain persists, major exchanges and custodians may need to temporarily suspend Bitcoin deposits and withdrawals to manage security and liquidity, potentially unsettling newer institutional investors. While BIP-110 is not expected to succeed in overtaking the main chain, its approach has ignited a significant debate about Bitcoin's governance, core values, and resilience.

Foresight NewsHá 1h

BIP-110 Controversy Intensifies: Bitcoin May Face Its Most Divisive Hard Fork Battle in Years

Foresight NewsHá 1h

Crypto Market Makers Are Collectively Seeking Change as Money Becomes Harder to Earn

**Summary: Crypto Market Makers Adapt as Margins Shrink** Leading crypto market maker GSR exemplifies a broader industry shift, moving beyond traditional market-making to become a full-service "Web3 investment bank." Its recent strategic acquisitions—including an SEC-registered broker-dealer, rebranded as GSR Securities—and purchases of token advisory firms aim to create an integrated platform covering token design, fundraising, listing, liquidity provision, and asset management. This includes launching an ETF and investing in tokenization platforms like Libeara, backed by a strategic investment from Standard Chartered's SC Ventures. This transformation is not unique to GSR. Other major players like Keyrock, B2C2, Wintermute, and DWF Labs are also expanding geographically, pursuing regulatory licenses (especially under frameworks like MiCA in the EU), and diversifying into over-the-counter (OTC) trading, asset management, and real-world asset tokenization. The driving force behind this collective pivot is a rapidly changing market. Profits from traditional altcoin market-making are declining due to fewer viable projects, reduced client budgets, increased competition, and smarter, more demanding clients. Simultaneously, regulatory pressures are mounting, making compliance a baseline cost. Extreme market events further expose teams lacking robust risk controls. Consequently, the crypto market-making business model is evolving from one reliant on information asymmetry and volatility to a more institutionalized, regulated, and service-diverse industry. Survival now depends on building systemic capabilities beyond mere liquidity provision.

marsbitHá 2h

Crypto Market Makers Are Collectively Seeking Change as Money Becomes Harder to Earn

marsbitHá 2h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片