No White House visit for Netanyahu

Eleven weeks into his third term as Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to be received at the White House, signaling apparent US unhappiness over the policies of his right-wing government.

Most new Israeli leaders had visited the United States or met the president by this point in their premierships, according to a Reuters review of official visits going back to the late 1970s. Only two out of 13 previous prime ministers heading a new government waited longer.

The White House declined to confirm Netanyahu has yet to be invited. A State Department spokesperson referred Reuters to the Israeli government for information about the prime minister's travel plans.

Israel’s embassy in Washington declined to comment.

"The message they clearly want to send is, if you pursue objectionable policies, there's no entitlement to the Oval Office sit-down,” said David Makovsky, a former senior adviser to the Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Since the start of the year, demonstrators have filled Israel's streets to protest the government's plan to curb the power of the Supreme Court, which critics say removes a check on the governing coalition.

Amid escalating West Bank violence, the right-wing government's action authorizing settler outposts and inflammatory comments from a member of Netanyahu's cabinet with responsibilities over Jewish settlements have drawn criticism from US officials, including from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during a visit to Israel last week.

US-Israeli ties remain close. The United States has long been Israel’s main benefactor, sending more than US$3 billion each year in military assistance.

President Joe Biden has known Netanyahu for decades, the two have spoken by phone, and senior officials in both countries have made visits since Netanyahu's government was formed in December 2023, despite Israel's spiraling political crisis.

But the lack of a White House visit underscores both the desire of the Biden administration to see different policies in Israel and what critics say is a reluctance to take more forceful steps.

US statements on events in Israel have often comprised “frustrating boiler-plate language,” said Sarah Yerkes, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who formerly worked at the State Department on policy towards Israel and the Palestinians.

“It has been frustrating to see this lack of teeth to any of the US responses,” Yerkes said.

“They don't get to be treated with the same kid gloves that they've always been treated with because ... they’re on the path to not being a democracy anymore.”

The Biden administration prefers quiet conversations over public criticism, a senior State Department official said, especially when it comes to the crisis over a proposed Israeli judicial overhaul.

“Anything that we would say on the specific proposals has the potential to be deeply counterproductive,” the official said, adding the goal was to encourage Israel’s leaders to build consensus over the reforms, rather than to be prescriptive on what the outcome should be.

Chris Murphy, a Democratic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he hopes the administration will persist with a clear message to Israel.

"I would certainly like to see the administration to be sending a strong signal that we have to maintain our support for a future Palestinian state and the decisions that the Netanyahu government are making now greatly compromise that future," Murphy said.

A separate group of 92 progressive lawmakers warned in a letter to Biden that the judicial overhaul could empower those in Israel who favor annexing the West Bank, "undermining the prospects for a two-state solution and threatening Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state.”

US leaders have rarely criticized Israeli policies since Secretary of State James Baker in 1989 advised the country against moves toward annexing Palestinian territory and expanding settlements. Baker later banned Netanyahu, at the time a deputy minister of foreign affairs, from the State Department after he criticized US policy toward Israel.

Biden, a Democrat who describes himself as a Zionist, says US support for Israel is ironclad.

“Biden’s own personal instincts are such that it’s very difficult for him to want to adopt an extremely tough posture towards Israel,” Dennis Ross, a veteran US Middle East peace negotiator now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“He would prefer to have the Middle East in a box so he can focus only on Russia, Ukraine and China. Unfortunately, the Middle East has a way of imposing itself, unless we initiate enough to try to manage the environment.”

 

 

Credit Suisse secures US$54 billion to prevent global bank crisis

Credit Suisse on Thursday said it would borrow up to US$54 billion from the Swiss central bank to shore up its liquidity and investor confidence after a slump in its shares intensified fears about a global financial crisis.

The Swiss bank's announcement helped stem heavy selling in financial markets in Asian morning trade on Thursday, following torrid sessions in Europe and the United States overnight as investors fretted about a run on global bank deposits.

In its statement early Thursday, Credit Suisse said it would exercise its option to borrow from the Swiss National Bank up to 50 billion Swiss francs (US$54 billion). That followed assurances from authorities in the private banking hub on Wednesday that Credit Suisse met the capital and liquidity requirements imposed on systemically important banks and that it could access central bank liquidity if needed.

Credit Suisse is the first major global bank to be given such a lifeline since the 2008 financial crisis - though central banks have extended liquidity more generally to banks during times of market stress including the coronavirus pandemic.

Asian stocks were hit by Wall Street's tumble on Thursday and investors bought gold, bonds and the dollar. While the bank's announcement helped trim some of those losses, trade was volatile and sentiment fragile.

"It does help. It removes an immediate risk. But it confronts us with another choice. The more we do this, the more we blunt monetary policy, the more we have to live with higher inflation -- and what is it going to be?" said Damien Boey, Chief Equity Strategist at Barrenjoey in Sydney.

"Do bailouts make things better? On the one hand, you are removing a source of risk to the markets which is a clear and present danger. On the other hand we are feeding into this paradigm of monetary policy bucking within itself."

The Swiss bank's problems have shifted the focus for investors and regulators from the United States to Europe, where Credit Suisse led a selloff in bank shares after its largest investor said it could not provide more financial assistance because of regulatory constraints.

The concerns about Credit Suisse added to broader banking sector fears sparked by last week's collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, two US mid-size firms.

Credit Suisse's borrowing will be made under the covered loan facility and a short-term liquidity facility, fully collateralized by high quality assets. It also announced offers for senior debt securities for cash of up to 3 billion francs.

"This additional liquidity would support Credit Suisse’s core businesses and clients as Credit Suisse takes the necessary steps to create a simpler and more focused bank built around client needs," the bank said.

Investor focus is also on any action by central banks and other regulators elsewhere to restore confidence in the banking system as well as any exposure businesses may have to Credit Suisse.

SVB's demise last week, followed by that of Signature Bank two days later, sent global bank stocks on a roller-coaster ride this week, with investors discounting  assurances from US President Joe Biden and emergency steps giving banks access to more funding.

FINMA and the Swiss central bank said there were no indications of a direct risk of contagion for Swiss institutions from US banking market turmoil.

On Wednesday, Credit Suisse shares led a 7% fall in the European banking index, while five-year credit default swaps (CADS) for the flagship Swiss bank hit a new record high.

The investor exit for the doors prompted fears of a broader threat to the financial system, and two supervisory sources told Reuters that the European Central Bank had contacted banks on its watch to quiz them about their exposures to Credit Suisse.

The US Treasury also said it is monitoring the situation around Credit Suisse and is in touch with global counterparts, a Treasury spokesperson said.

Rapid rises in interest rates have made it harder for some businesses to pay back or service loans, increasing the chances of losses for lenders who are also worried about a recession.

Traders are now betting that the Federal Reserve, which just last week was expected to accelerate its interest-rate-hike campaign in the face of persistent inflation, may be forced to hit pause and even reverse course.

Bets on a large European Central Bank interest-rate hike at Thursday's meeting also evaporated quickly as the Credit Suisse rout fanned fears about the health of Europe's banking sector. Money market pricing suggested traders now saw less than a 20% chance of a 50 basis point rate hike at the ECB meeting.

Unease sparked by SVP's demise has also prompted depositors to seek out new homes for their cash.

Ralph Hammers, CEO of Credit Suisse rival UBS said market turmoil has steered more money its way and Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing said that the German lender has also seen incoming deposits.

 

 

 

Five key takeaways from the Russian jet-US drone incident

Two Russian jets sparked the latest diplomatic crisis between Moscow and Washington on Tuesday when they forced down an unmanned American aircraft into the Black Sea.

The White House blasted the incident as unsafe and reckless, while Russia has downplayed the event, even accusing the US of provocative drone flights approaching Russian territory.

Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, called it an extraordinary and worrying clash between Russia and the Western security alliance NATO.

“Whatever the intent of the Russians, this is a very dangerous situation,” he said. “On a daily basis we have Russian weapons and aircraft and personnel in close proximity to NATO territory, NATO personnel, NATO platforms. And so the risk of escalation is significant.”

Here are five key takeaways from the downed drone.

Airspace interceptions aren’t new, but this was rare

The US intercepts Russian fighter jets several times a year in the Air Defense Identification Zone that covers international airspace outside of the US and Canada. That includes the interception of four Russian fighter jets near Alaska last month.

There have also been interceptions of US and NATO aircraft by Russian planes in the Black Sea in recent years. But the drone attack was particularly concerning for Washington, which said the MQ-9 Reaper drone was flanked by two Russian jets before one Russian jet dumped fuel on the drone.

A Russian jet then damaged the propeller of the drone and forced it down into the Black Sea.

National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said the attack of a US drone was especially alarming compared to previous interceptions.

“This one obviously is noteworthy because of how unsafe and unprofessional it was,” Kirby told reporters on Tuesday.

Neither the US nor Russia has recovered the drone

The $32 million dollar drone may never be recovered.

Speaking to CNN on Wednesday, Kirby said the drone plunged into very deep water, and US officials are determining whether recovery efforts are possible.

But Russia is pushing forward to recover the aircraft, according to Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of Russia’s Security Council.

“I don’t know if we can recover them or not, but we will certainly have to do that, and we will deal with it,” Patrushev said on Russian television Wednesday, according to The Associated Press.

Kirby said the US has taken steps to protect the information and data the drone has to limit intelligence collection from Russia.

Russia accuses US of provocation

Russia claims the US drone maneuvered sharply and crashed into the Black Sea on its own.

The Russian Defense Ministry also slammed the US for operating near the region of Crimea, which Moscow illegally annexed from Ukraine in 2014 — but which the US refused to recognize as Russian territory.

Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov told reporters Tuesday, after being summoned to the State Department, that the drone was moving deliberately and provocatively towards the Russian territory.

“The unacceptable actions of the United States military in the close proximity to our borders are cause for concern,” Antonov said. “We are well aware of the missions such reconnaissance and strike drones are used for.”

US says it will continue patrols

The US has operated reconnaissance missions over the Black Sea for more than a year, predating Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the US will not be deterred by the incident.

“Make no mistake, the United States will continue to fly and to operate wherever international law allows,” Austin said on Wednesday.

Fears of escalation persist

Tensions between the US and Russia have reached the highest point since the Cold War, rising after Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, escalating further after Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and then skyrocketing after Moscow’s full invasion of Ukraine last year.

The US and Russia maintain a crisis communication line to deal with incidents such as the drone attack, but Moscow has not picked up the phone at some critical moments during the war in Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday  described the relationship between Moscow and Washington as at its lowest point, although he said Russia would continue to engage in diplomacy.

“Russia has never rejected a constructive dialogue, and it’s not rejecting it now,” Peskov said.

 

 

 

 

High Sulphur fuel oil still accounts for 26% of global bunker sales

Despite more than three years on from the IMO 2020 regulation coming into force, high Sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) still accounts for over a quarter of global bunker sales as owners reap the benefits of scrubbers.

With the IMO 2020 regulation restricting bunker fuel to 0.5% Sulphur content from January 01, 2020 market observers had been expecting HSFO to become marginalized and potentially difficult to purchase in many ports.

However, scrubbers have proved to be an economical option with owners benefiting from high price spreads between HSFO and very low Sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO) and marine gas oil (MGO).

A presentation by Minerva Bunkering CEO, Tyler Baron at the Fujairah Bunkering and Fuel Oil Forum (Fujcon 2023) showed that in 2022 HSFO accounted for 26% of the 230 million metric ton global marine fuel market in 2022. The largest share of the market was taken by VLSFO with 62%, while the MGO sales accounted for 11%, and other fuels 1%.

Looking at top bunkering locations, 28% of bunker sales in Singapore were HSFO, some 31% in Amsterdam – Rotterdam – Antwerp (ARA), and 35% in the US Gulf Coast.

Scrubbers allowing the continued use of HSFO have proved popular with owners of larger tonnage according to DNV as of 2023 there are 5,006 vessels fitted with exhaust gas cleaning system, or due to be this year.

Higher oil prices since the Russian invasion of Ukraine have driven price spreads between high and very low Sulphur fuel oil giving significant savings to scrubber-fitted vessel burning HFSO.

At present the price difference in Singapore is US$142 per ton, VLSFO priced at US$558.50 per ton and IFO380 at US$446.50 per ton, according to Ship & Bunker.

In Rotterdam the price spread is US$148 per ton, and Houston there is a US$190.50 per ton difference.

As the first scrubbers designed with carbon capture and storage (CCS) capability starting to be fitted the HFSO could remain in demand for many years to come.

 

Russia’s downing of US drone sparks fears

Russia’s apparent attack of a US drone in international airspace on Tuesday quickly sparked concerns, spurring anxiety in Washington and drumming up fear across the nation of a wider escalation between the two countries.

The Biden administration and lawmakers have blasted Russia for what they called an unprofessional and unsafe maneuver in which two Russian jets damaged a US MQ-9, forcing it to crash land in the Black Sea Tuesday.

Top American defense officials and experts quickly pointed out the unusual nature of the incident.

“This is extremely unusual, I’m not aware of an incident like this that’s occurred over the last year of conflict over there,” Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told The Hill.

Intercepts between US and Russian aircraft are not uncommon, with several cases happening near Alaskan airspace so far this year. But the drone incident is uncommon and unfortunate and unsafe, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters at the Pentagon.

While it’s unclear if this was a case of a rogue pilot or not, the US European Command called the Russian actions dangerous, noting that they could lead to miscalculation and unintended escalation.

US aircraft have operated over the Black Sea since before Russia invaded Ukraine, using the highly advanced MQ-9 spy drone to keep eyes on the region. But Tuesday’s incident marks the first publicly known case of a Russian warplane purposely damaging a US aircraft amid the conflict.  

Administration officials said the MQ-9 was flying over the Black Sea on a routine flight before it was flanked by two Russian jets. 

The jets flew alongside the drone for 30 to 40 minutes before one of the jets flew in front of it and dumped fuel. One of the Kremlin jets then struck the drone’s propeller, forcing it to crash into the Black Sea.

While there have been a number of close-call incidents with Russian aircraft in the past, what makes this case unique is it involves an uncrewed US aircraft, a detail that could keep tensions from blowing up, according to Becca Wasser, a senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security.  

“The incident is deeply concerning given the context in which it takes place, but the fact that it was an uncrewed platform is likely to reduce the chances of it boiling over,” she told The Hill.

Wasser pointed to a similar incident in 2019 when Iran shot down an RQ-4 Global Hawk, which did not result in a direct US military response.

Stephen Twitty, a retired lieutenant general and former deputy commander of US European Command who is now a distinguished fellow with the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said the incident can be resolved and it was important that Washington not escalate tensions any further.

“What we cannot do is jump with hotheadedness to take both of our countries into conflict,” Twitty said. “We cannot let the Russians provoke us into doing something irrational. 

“This is about more than about the United States — this is about us and 29 other countries,” he continued, and “we need to conduct ourselves in a manner that does not take NATO or the United States to war.”

Russian officials seem to have rebuffed efforts from US officials to communicate about the incident.

At the Pentagon, Ryder said that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has not yet spoken to his Russian counterpart.

The US military in March 2022 created a channel known as the de-confliction line to communicate directly with the Russian military to prevent miscalculations and escalation over the war in Ukraine.

But some calls have gone unanswered on Moscow’s side at critical times.

In November, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley attempted to speak with his Russian counterpart following a missile-caused explosion in NATO ally Poland but was unable to get through.

Neither Austin nor Milley have spoken with their Russian counterparts since October.

When asked about Tuesday’s drone incident at a press event, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger said his biggest worry was a collision in the early morning hours and the potential roadblocks of trying to communicate about it to de-escalate.

Still, the State Department intends to reach out to Russian officials, according to National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said Tuesday.

Russian ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov was summoned to the State Department, where he met with officials to discuss the incident.  

US officials are now likely weighing the circumstances over Russia’s actions as they contemplate their response, with questions over where the drone was, how it interacted with the Russian jets and how it was brought down.

Other considerations include whether there was any warning or communication before the Russians reacted as this can help inform the US reaction.

“I don’t know the details [of the Russian interception and drone downing], whether the drone was near something sensitive to them,” said former US Ambassador to Poland Daniel Fried, now a distinguished fellow with the Atlantic Council.

Fried said he views the incident as part of the ongoing sour relationship the US has had with the Kremlin since during the Cold War, made anew when Russia invaded Ukraine.

But while on the rougher end of the harassment scale, he views the drone attack as saber rattling.

The drone attack prompted fury in Congress on Tuesday. Sen. Jack Reed, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, blasted Russia as reckless and inept.

“There is no other way to describe Russia’s behavior in this collision with a US drone over [international] waters,” Reed tweeted. “This pattern of Russian provocation must end.”

Reed, who praised the professional manner of the US military response, told reporters on Tuesday they will have to investigate how the disturbing incident unfolded and determine the sequence of events and how deliberate of a provocation it was.

Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, tweeted the incident was further proof that the threat Russia poses towards the US and NATO has not receded.

“Putin and his cronies are attempting to test our resolve – a test that we cannot afford to fail,” Rogers wrote.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer called the attack brazen and dangerous.

“I want to tell Mr. Putin, stop this behavior before you are the cause of an unintended escalation,” Schumer said. “We have seen this behavior from the Russian military before, and it will not deter the United States from conducting operations over the Black Sea.”

 

Sri Lanka: China offers to fully finance Hambantota refinery

According to Colombo Gazette, Chinese Sinopec has offered to fully finance the construction of a refinery in Hambantota, Sri Lanka.

During a discussion with representatives of the Sinopec Group held at the Presidential Secretariat, President Ranil Wickremesinghe said that the Government has taken a principled decision to expand the distribution of fuel which is expected to commence shortly.

The representatives from the Sinopec Group confirmed their readiness to invest in the import, storage, distribution, and marketing of fuel to cater to Sri Lanka’s energy requirements.

The representatives informed the Sri Lankan Government that their organization has adhered to the existing system and has applied accordingly. They further conveyed their readiness to fully finance the construction of a refinery in Hambantota, which has been identified as a central energy hub by the Government.

Moreover, the representatives stated that their company is prepared to respond to future solicitations that align with the aspirations of the country.

They also presented their proposal to the President who spoke about the import, storage and distribution of petroleum products.

Expressing his views, President Ranil Wickremesinghe stated that Sri Lanka expects rapid development following the program with the International Monetary Fund.

President Wickremesinghe also expressed his desire to promote and attract foreign businesses to operate within the country in the future.

Minister of Power and Energy Kanchana Wijesekera, Senior Advisor to the President on National Security and Chief of Presidential Staff Sagala Ratnayake, Secretary to the President Saman Ekanayake, Secretary of the Treasury Mahinda Siriwardena, Secretary of the Ministry of Power and Energy Mapa Pathirana and government officials and representatives of the Sinopec Group participated in the discussion.

 

Silicon Valley Bank collapse stirs up fears

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank brings back memories on Capitol Hill of rescuing the financial markets during the 2008 collapse, raising concerns among lawmakers that taxpayers may have to pay to bail out risky financial bets. 

President Joe Biden assured the nation that no taxpayer money will be used after lawmakers warned over the weekend they will not support bailouts, which are unpopular with voters.  

The president said the money to cover depositors would come from the fees banks pay into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and promised that managers at failed banks would be fired and stock-holding investors would not be protected — sidestepping a fight with Congress.  

Still, there is already disagreement over what constitutes a bailout and the fund being used to pay depositors — including over the US$250,000 for standard insurance from the FDIC — is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

Some conservative Republicans are already making the argument that covering depositors above the FDIC’s regular US$250,000 deposit insurance limit is creating a future moral hazard and could embolden risky behavior heading forward.  

A GOP aide predicted that more conservatives would push that argument once they return to Washington and have more time to examine the details of Biden’s intervention.  

“I’m sure there will be people who take the view that there shouldn’t be government intervention on any of this,” the aide said.  

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle spent Sunday assuring voters they were against a bailout.

Sen. Bob Menendez said, he was not ready to offer them a bailout by any stretch of the imagination, while Rep. Nancy Mace said, “It’s still very early. I don’t even think it’s been 48 hours. But at this time, I would not support a bailout.”

Biden’s decision to intervene and pledge on Monday that no depositors will lose their money was viewed as an effort to avoid repeat of the panic that gripped the financial markets in 2008 after the Bush administration decided not to rescue Lehman Brothers Inc., a major investment bank.  

Former Sen. Ben Nelson, who was in the Senate when Lehman Brothers collapsed, said then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and other senior administration officials were uncertain at first about how to respond to the crisis. 

“It isn’t quite déjà vu because it’s different. First of all, Biden stepped forward and said this is what it’s going to be. It isn’t a bailout, it’s going to be making sure depositors are covered,” Nelson said.  

Nelson said Biden appears to have learned a key lesson from the fall of 2008, the federal government must act quickly and decisively to prevent fear from quickly spreading through the financial markets.  

“I don’t know how many days it was, the secretary of the Treasury was getting together with us trying what to do. There wasn’t any plan that I can recall that came together right away as quickly as this did,” he said, comparing the federal response in 2008 to today.  

Liberals, meanwhile, are going on offense by blaming Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on a banking deregulation bill signed in 2018 under President Trump.  

“In 2018, Donald Trump signed a law to deregulate large banks like SVB and Signature Bank. In opposing Trump’s decision to roll back the toughest regulatory requirements in Dodd-Frank, I warned at the time that this could create serious vulnerabilities and may make it more difficult for regulators to spot a threat to financial stability from a larger bank while increasing competitive pressures on community banks and credit unions, Sen. Jack Reed, a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement Monday afternoon.  

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which passed the Senate with bipartisan support in 2018, scaled back some requirements of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which Congress passed after the 2008 financial collapse.  

Critics say it contributed to the downfall of Signature Bank, which the FDIC took control of Sunday.  

Together they mark the second- and third-biggest bank collapses, respectively, in US history and kindled fears of runs on regional banks across the country. 

Shares of San Francisco-based First Republic bank fell 62% on Monday while Western Alliance Bancorp shares fell 47% and PacWest Bancorp shares dropped 21%. 

“Let’s be clear. The failure of Silicon Valley Bank is a direct result of an absurd 2018 bank deregulation bill signed by Donald Trump that I strongly opposed,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said.   

“Five years ago, the Republican Director of the Congressional Budget Office released a report finding that this legislation would ‘increase the likelihood that a large financial firm with assets of between $100 billion and $250 billion would fail,” he said.  

Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote in a New York Times op-ed Monday, “Had Congress and the Federal Reserve not rolled back the stricter oversight, S.V.B. and Signature would have been subject to stronger liquidity and capital requirements to withstand financial shocks.” 

Some Republicans, on the other hand, blamed Silicon Valley Bank’s downfall on a lack of proper oversight from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. They argue that federal regulators have become too preoccupied with climate and other woke issues to watch out for fundamental problems.  

“There’s no mystery what transpired. They had 10% insured deposits; they had massive unrealized losses because their portfolio was weighted in long-duration debt so they had a liquidity mismatch. It didn’t matter what artificial regulatory you put into place, you could not overcome the underlying fundamentals of the mismatch and the high rate of uninsured deposits,” said a second GOP aide.  

“How the hell did the regulator miss this? That’s the whole point of supervisory examination, to spot this type of thing,” the aide added.  

The Republican aide argued that Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse doesn’t call for a new wave of regulation because its circumstances of its liquidity shortfall don’t affect the vast majority of other banks.  

“There was no bank in the country with a larger liquidity mismatch than SVB. Nobody else even comes close to the problem that this bank had. That’s what makes it so astonishing that the regulators missed it,” the GOP aide added.  

Silicon Valley Bank reported in a December regulatory filing that 95 percent of its bank deposits were uninsured.  

Biden administration officials hastily convened a call with Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate Sunday evening to brief them on the plans to insure the deposits at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank.  

The briefing was convened so quickly that only a few Senate Republicans participated, including Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) and Senate Republican Whip John Thune’s staff.  

The administration held a second briefing midday Monday to bring Republican senators who missed the Sunday call up to speed.  

The quick outreach appeared to pay off when Romney voiced support for the administration’s actions during the Sunday call and then tweeted his support.  

Romney retweeted a statement from the Federal Reserve announcing the plan to ensure depositors’ savings and praised it as the right decision.  

Democratic leaders on Monday applauded the Biden administration for taking quick action and urged colleagues to look closely at the failure of Silicon Valley Bank to weigh whether more regulation is needed.  

“We are grateful that the Biden administration, Federal Reserve and FDIC took swift action to safeguard depositors and maintain confidence in the banking system,” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a joint statement.  

“Americans should have faith that bank regulators are doing everything they can to protect consumers. In the coming days and weeks, Congress will be looking closely at the causes behind the run on Silicon Valley Bank and other banks and how we can prevent a similar crisis in the future,” they said.  

The vast majority of congressional Republicans stayed quiet on Monday, with neither Speaker Kevin McCarthy nor Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell commenting on the decision to cover the potential losses of bank depositors.  

McCarthy told Fox News Sunday that the administration had the tools to handle the current situation but voiced hope that regulators would find a larger bank to buy Silicon Valley Bank to cover the depositors.  

“This bank is a unique bank, where they do have assets, they have an amazing clientele, it’s something that could be very possible [for] someone to purchase this bank,” he said, describing that as “the best outcome.”